Brosamlein

The fact that there exists a distinction of rank between the sexes holds for all times on the basis of the apostolic argument.  As among the angels, God has also ordained a difference of rank among humans. This order should, therefore, in no way be the cause of envy or resentment.  Through the fall into sin, however, these vices have come into the world aimed precisely at this relationship, the hierarchy [Rangordung], between man and woman. The subordination of woman under man which exists according to God’s will is experienced by the woman as a burden and, as a rule, through the guilt of both.  The man wants to exploit his position as dominance, as arrogant tyranny, and the woman refuses to acknowledge her subordination. Our age resounds with arguments which want to be made valid against the order of Scripture.  And the result is discord, perversion of the divine order, and, as a consequence, the breakdown of marriage. For as the modern woman demands not only equal status [Gleichberechtigung] with man in secular as well as spiritual respects, but even wants to take on the role of leader, she expands this demand to marriage as well despite the clear words of Genesis 3:16, Eph. 5:22, and 1 Pet. 3:6.  It is almost self-evident that Christian women would want to stay away from such an existence. An English preacher made a fitting remark about this: “It isn’t a question of superiority, but of headship.” As it can often occur that the president of a republic, the head of a business, or any other person who finds himself in an executive position is likely surpassed in talent and ability by one of his subordinates, it may also occur that individual women distinguish themselves above certain men in knowledge and perception.  The Apostle does not wish to deny them this fact. This, however, has no influence on the hierarchy that God has created from the beginning and which must remain until the lawgiver himself rescinds it. – Paul E. Kretzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1918), 74-75


But here someone could object:  Yes, but even among us the entire congregation is not present and active in the calling of a pastor.  The election is made only by voting members of the congregation; but where are, for example, the women who as members of Christ’s Church also have priestly rights? To be sure, the election and calling of a preacher occurs among us by means of representation.  But this is entirely in accordance with Scripture, since in 1 Cor. 14:34,35 the Apostle commands the women: “Let your women be silent among the congregation; for it is not permitted them to speak but rather to be subordinate as the law says. If, however, they wish to learn something, then let them ask their men at home.  It is shameful for women to speak in the congregation.” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11f) Accordingly, it is not permitted women to speak in the congregation, indeed, not even publicly to pose questions for their instruction. How then could they be allowed to submit their vote for the calling of a pastor? Paul calls upon neither the mother of Jesus nor the other women who were always together with them to elect an apostle (Acts 1:14), but rather turns only to the “men and brothers” (Acts 1:16.)  However, women are not completely excluded from the calling [of a pastor.] Indeed, they have the right to discuss the matter with their men at home, and therefore the opportunity to express their wishes or to raise a protest. R. Osthoff, “Etliche Grundsätze und Regeln für Berufung und Versetzung von Predigern und Missionaren,” Verhandlungen der ersten Jahresversammlung des Texas-Distrikts der Deutschen Evangelisch-Lutherischen Synode von Missouri, Ohio und Anderen Staaten, Texas-Distrikts (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1906),31.

An article published in a the 2016 Spring/Summer edition of the semiannual periodical Pietisten.

by Georg Stoeckhardt. Translated from the German by Shawn Barnett

Nam nomine Dei praecipiunt atque imperant, qui publice docent. — Abraham Calov

Here in America, women teachers make up a significant element of the public schools. State schools are mostly served by female personnel.  But we also see women teachers at work in Christian parochial schools, though in a limited measure. In the old Lutheran church orders there is even a rubric on the service of “school mistresses,” to whom in particular the instruction of maidens was entrusted.  See the relevant article from the November issue, 1896, of the Schulblatt.  There the questions have recently been posed: How? Is the correct? Does that agree with God’s Word? How should the vocation of a female teacher be regarded in church schools? These questions will be illuminated here in brief with God’s Word.

Christ’s church is entrusted with many gifts.  To these gifts belong offices or ministries, διακονίαι.  And there are various services, Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:5. By way of example, the apostle names a series of such gifts and ministries.  It is not his intent to list them all. He gives by name especially those χαρίσματα which formed the prerogative of the apostolic church, gifts of miracles and miraculous powers with which the ecclesia primitiva was adorned.  In times since, other services have emerged in the church which the first Christendom did not know. All gifts and services are granted to the church, and the church, the congregation, is lord over the same.  “All things are yours,” even Paul, Apollo, Cephas (1 Cor. 3:21-33.) The congregation, for her part subservient to Christ and God, is lord over all and, therefore, has the power and right to order and establish all ministries.  The standard for this is πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον, “for the common benefit” (1 Cor. 12:7.) Only one thing is to be considered in this. All ecclesial ministries stand somehow in relationship to the Word, to the ministry of the Word. Ultimately, Christ has summarized everything which he commanded and entrusted to his Church with the words: “Preach the Gospel to all creation!” Go forth, teach, baptize! Even such a service as the distribution of alms or the care of the sick, for example, has a relationship to the Word.  Where this ministry is correctly ordered and correctly exercised, the Word of God gains a truly tangible form in the life of the congregation. And precisely for this reason, all other ministries are subordinate to the most principal office, the pastoral office, the establishment of which was not only placed in the hands of the congregation, but also commanded by God, as well as auxiliary ministries. The pastor of the congregation is according to Scripture κατ᾽ἐξοχήν the teacher, the shepherd and the overseer of the congregation; he is responsible for the entire congregation and must eventually render an account for the congregation (Acts 20:23, 1 Pet. 5:1-3, Hebr. 13:17.)  Thus the elders [Vorsteher] are assistants of the pastor in the episcopacy, and assist him in their part to admonish and warn the individuals with God’s Word.

One of these ministries, which the congregation has in her hand, in fact as lord, is the ministry toward the little ones, school ministry.   We do not find a special ministry or special ministers of this type in the ancient church. As in Israel, children in the earliest christendom received their first spiritual nourishment from their parents, later from the elders of the congregation. In the course of time, ecclesial schools and the office of the ecclesial school teacher came into being.  It is clear that today the employment of particular schoolteachers and the establishment of Christian parochial schools corresponds to the needs of the church. It is not necessary to further elaborate on this point here. What, then, prevents the congregation, which here has both complete power and authority, from making use of a female labor force in the service of the school?  Do not many Christian maidens and widows have the particular gift of dealing with children, captivating and winning the hearts of little ones, and speaking with children about divine matters in a simple and childlike way. Of course, one should make no secret of the fact that a woman teacher at a Christian parochial school, in as much as she provides instruction in religion, administers a portion of the publica doctrina.  Even when a female teacher imprints the main Bible stories, the first two chief parts of the catechism, and various Bible verses and hymn stanzas upon the smallest children in the lowest grades, she thereby teaches them God’s Word.  She tells Bible stories, but a correct narration presupposes that she herself has rightly grasped the sense and understanding of the stories and that in presenting the stories she communicates the correct sense and understanding to the children.  And through question and answer, she takes care that the children also truly learn and grasp what they memorize as far as their capacity allows. Therefore every female teacher truly teaches and hers is a public teaching. She teaches God’s Word on behalf of the congregation.  She is also a persona publica. Admittedly, not everything that an officer of the congregation does is public in the sense that it is common and known to the entire congregation. When, for example, a pastor privately admonishes by virtue of his office, gives fatherly counsel to a penitent upon his private confession, this is certainly not open speaking and teaching.  But whatever is said and taught in front of a large throng of children in the classroom is, according the nature of the matter, public. What a teacher, male or female, does or says in school, he does or says before the eyes and ears of the congregation.  The children discuss amongst themselves and likely tell their parents whatever makes a particular impression upon them in instruction. A single word of a teacher, be it a truly apt, captivating word or an awkward one, can very quickly make the rounds in the congregation.  In short, it is evident that a female teacher performs the same work in her class that is accomplished by a male teacher in a parallel class in another school.

How?  Does not God’s word forbid women from any and every public teaching?  Is not the right and freedom of the Christian congregation to distribute the ministries toward the school according to its own best consideration limited by such words of Scripture as 1 Cor. 14:34-26 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14?  It all comes down to us taking an exact look at these apostolic statements and realizing what the Apostle prohibits to women and what not.

In the 14th chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul gives the Corinthian Christians an instruction on the establishment and order of the public divine service: how it should be held when they come together (v. 26), especially on the correct use of the double χάρισμα of prophecy and speaking in tongues.  He impresses upon them that prophets should not speak over one another, but rather in order and that in every gathering about two or three should speak so that the hearers can correctly grasp what they are hearing. “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (v.29-33) And now he adds a prohibition which concerns the women. “The women should be silent in the congregation.”  It must have also occurred in the Corinthian congregation, which was torn into by so much disorder, that women emerged as teachers in the public divine services. The Apostle sees a disorder in this and takes it on with complete determination. The portion of the chapter in consideration here begins with the last words of verse 33. These words connect better with that which follows than the preceding.  Accordingly, we translate verse 33b and 34a as: “As in all assemblies of the saints, so also your women should be silent in the assemblies.” With the expression ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις as well as ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις the congregational assemblies are meant. The εκκλησίαι of a Corinthian congregation can be nothing other than the public assemblies of the congregation. Indeed, the entire chapter deals with how the liturgical assemblies should be held.  The localization ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, “in the assemblies,” is set over against the other localization ἐν οἶκω, “at home” (v. 35). The meaning of the Apostle is not that women should be quiet in the realm of the church in every respect or that they should not speak “on behalf of the congregation,” but rather that they should be quite in the liturgical gatherings and should not speak, i.e. refrain from public teaching. That this and nothing else is the sense of the apostolic prohibition is evident from its justification. “For it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be submissive, as the law also says.”  The emphasis is laid upon ὑποτάσσεσθαι. It becomes women to be submissive. To whom? Clearly to the men. This is the law. The apostle points to the word that God spoke to Eve while still in Paradise: “Your will shall be subjected to your husband, and he will be your lord” (Gen. 3:16). This was the will and command of God from the beginning that women should subordinate themselves to men in all things. Precisely for this reason it was not permitted to women to speak and instruct men in the public assembly and therefore in the presence of so many men. In this way, they would elevate themselves above men.  women should be submissive to men, they should be quiet in the liturgical assembly, piously listen, and let themselves be instructed by the men, by the teachers of the congregation. In this way, they submit themselves to the men. For the student is subordinate to the teacher. St. Paul adds: “If, however, they wish to learn something, they should ask their husbands [Männer] at home.”  Frequently a discussion connected to the instructional discourses, a sort of conversation on the teaching.  Whoever had not understood something asked the teacher, and this point was discussed. The Apostle, however, does not even permit women to direct questions to the teacher and thus to occasion a public discussion and participate therein.  They should rather ask their husbands at home. Paul gives the reason for this with the words: “for it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly.” From the subordination of women under men flows womanly discipline and shame, restrain in converse with men. However, women injure and deny this female propriety and modesty when they in any way seize the word in a public gathering, even by raising questions, participating in discussion and thereby drawing the attention and glances of so many men upon themselves.  What St. Paul here forbids to women and to the congregation with respect to women, is a direct, apostolic prohibition. He speaks categorically: “Women should be silent.” “It is not permitted to women to speak.” But on top of that, he expressly asserts his instruction as God’s Word. “Or has the Word of God come from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (v. 36.) The Word of God has not gone out from the Corinthians; it was handed down to them by others and not only to them, but it has come to many other places. But everywhere else, where the Word has come, in all other congregations, the public divine service is held in accordance with the Word of God, so that women may not act as teachers.  Thus the Corinthians should follow the example of other congregations and comply with the Word of God in this matter as well.

Just how serious the Apostle is that the natural relationship which exists between man and woman, that of superordination and subordination, not be disturbed within the Church can been seen from another passage from 1 Corinthians, ch. 11:1-16.  He is also dealing here with the liturgical gatherings of the congregation and instructs women to appear with a covered head, men, however, with an uncovered head. It was the custom among Greeks that in public gatherings and especially in temples and the festivals of idols women wore a head covering, but men were seen with a free, exposed head.  The covering of women’s heads was considered a symbol of the dependence upon men, the free, uncovered head of men as a sign of their dignity and grandeur. The apostle does not introduce what he writes here about external attire and bearing as an apostolic command, as a Word of God, but rather he imparts good counsel to the Corinthians; it is a laudable custom, συνἠθεια (v. 16), that is well established in all other congregations, which he here commends to them.  He does not want to engage in further dispute with those who are of another opinion and contradict him. Ultimately, Christian women can sufficiently maintain and signify their position toward men, their dependence upon men, even when they appear in the divine service without a head covering. For the Apostle, what matters is that everywhere they stay within their limits. So in this context he recalls the creation of man and woman and the relationship of the one to the other established in creation.  “Man is not from woman, but woman from man. And man is made for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” (v. 8,9.) It follows from this that the man is the head of the woman, but the woman is subordinate to the man (v. 3). To be sure, in Christ there is neither man nor woman; women are partakers of the same grace as men. But Christendom does not remove the distinction between man and woman that is grounded in the order of creation. In external converse, in gatherings with men, and also in liturgical [gottesdienstlich] assemblies, women should not forget, but rather prove that they are women, subordinate to men.

But how?  Does not the Apostle in this very passage (1 Cor. 11:1-16) establish an exception from the rule that women should be silent in the congregation in accord with their natural position, and give us a right to similar exceptions so that we could in any case include the vocation of women teachers under exceptions to the rule.  He writes in verse five: “But a woman, who prays or prophesies with an uncovered head, defiles her head.” Here the apostle does not forbid women to pray or prophesy, but only declares it to be unbecoming that they do so with an uncovered head. This expression of St. Paul has been interpreted to mean that he temporarily suspended his judgment about prayer and prophecy themselves, of which he had, admittedly, not approved and only reproved a grievance that he was dealing with in this context, namely the exposure of the head.  It would, however, be quite peculiar if he reproved something incidental, which is ultimately an adiaphoron, the violation of a good, laudable custom, without simultaneously chiding the main matter, the violation of God’s Word and order. Or the prayer and prophecy of women with uncovered head has been relocated to private homes, within the circle of the family, although clearly against the context of the passage. No, the words of the Apostle hardly tolerate another understanding than that he has no misgivings about the prayer and prophecy of women per se, even public prayer and prophecy, when it occurs with a covered head.  However, he has not in the least limited or weakened what he writes in 1 Cor. 14 about the silence of women. Neither prayer nor prophecy belong to that speaking which he directly forbids of women in 1 Cor. 14:33-36. Women should not teach in the congregational assembly nor publicly act as teachers, instruct men, or even publicly dispute in front of or with men. This is, as we have recognized, St. Paul’s meaning in the last mentioned passage. However, neither prayer nor prophecy belongs to this category. First of all, prayer is not teaching or discussing. It is certainly only praiseworthy that the women pray and sing in the divine service in and with the congregation, indeed loudly and powerfully.  When they do so gingerly and lightly whisper instead of singing, as some tend to do, that is no proof of feminine modesty and restraint. But even prophecy did not contradict the σιγάτωσαν, “they should be silent.” It was common for women to pray in the assembly; when a woman prophesied, it was something extraordinary. It did not happen often. Therefore in ch. 11:13 the Apostle only names prayer again and not prophecy. According to the nature of the matter, prophecy could not be forbidden to anyone who had a prophecy in as mucha s god himself had given him the prophecy with the goal of imparting it to others. The prophecy of which Paul here speaks was a miraculous gift of the apostolic period, having the same significance as ἀποκάλυψις, revelation, explicitly distinguished from the gift of “knowledge and teaching” (1 Cr. 14:6,26). The Spirit of God who worked in the congregation gave a special revelation once to this Christian, once to that Christian, even during the assembly and drove him then to announce it to the assembled.  Whoever prophesied was an organ of God; God spoke through him. His person, his entire personal knowledge and understanding stepped into the background. And here and there it pleased God to give a revelation to a woman. By giving forbidding women to speak and teach in the assembly, he did not thereby tie his hand with such an order, established for the congregation. When he wanted, he could reveal his will at once through a woman. He had even once opened the mouth of a donkey and rebuked a prophet through its mouth. Thus God had also granted those four daughters of the deacon Phillip the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9.) However, this prophecy, which God gave, was precisely not teaching. When a woman prophesied, she simply repeated what God had inspired in her. She did not thus intervene in the office of the presbyters who worked in teaching. She had not in this way imposed herself as a teacher on the congregation, on the assembled men. She had not in this way presented her own wisdom or imparted to the men instruction or teaching to the congregation, to the men, from out of her own Christian knowledge, experience, or illumination.  When a woman prophesied, she appeared only a medium of the spirit, her person receded entirely into the background. This was another matter than if she raised questions in the assembly on her own, made objections, began to dispute, and thereby captivated the attention of all the assembled and drew it upon her person. Thus the prohibition of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 14:33-36 remains in effect and valid under all circumstances and permits no exceptions.

The Apostle confirms and strengthens this in another letter, 1 Timothy 2:11-14.  In this context also, he speaks concerning the liturgical assemblies and urges the men to participate therein with holy earnestness and the women with modest attire (v. 8-10.) And then he continues: “Let a woman learn in quiet with all submissiveness.” (v. 11)   It becomes a woman quietly and attentively to listen and learn what the teacher of the congregation says. The woman subordinates herself to the man by allowing herself to be taught by him. The statement of verse 11 is further explained by the following sentence, verse 12. “ But I do not permit a woman to teach nor to be the man’s lord, but that she be still.”  γυναικὶ δὲ διδἀσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω (v. 12) corresponds to γυνὴ μανθανέτω (v. 11) and οὐδέ αὐθεντεῖν τοῦ άνδρός (v 12) corresponds to ἐν πἀσῃ ὑποταγῇ (v. 11). The woman should learn and not teach. Therefore this speaking, teaching in the public assembly, is forbidden to women. Docendi potestatem in publico coetu adimit mulieribus apostolus (Calov). (The apostle deprives women of the power of teaching in the public assembly)  The woman should be submissive and rule over the man. For whoever teaches publicly rules in a spiritual manner those who hear him and determines their will. Nam nomine Dei praecipiunt atque imperant, qui publice docent (Calov.) (For those who teach publicly order and command in the name of God.)  The Apostle justifies his admonition in two ways. First, he does so with by alluding to the story of creation.  “For Adam was made first, then Eve” (v. 13. Both that woman is made from man (1 Cor. 11: 8) and that woman is made before man entail that man is the woman lord and head.  Second, he does so by recalling the story of the Fall. “And Adam was not deceived; rather the woman was deceived and so transgressed.” The serpent deceived Eve (2 Cor. 11:3)  The emphasis lies upon the concept, ἀπατᾷν, deceiving. Bengel appropriate notes the subtlety: Serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non decepit, sed ei persuasit. (The serpent deceived the woman; the woman did not deceive the man, but persuaded him.) The woman as the weaker vessel is more approachable with deceit and fraud. And the woman then seduced the man and thus enmeshed the entire human race in sin and transgression.  The first instruction that a woman imparted to a man, the first lecture [Dozieren] of a woman under the tree of good resulted in evil. Therefore the woman is truly not fit for the public preaching office.  Ait igitur, quia semel mulier virum edocuit et cuncta pervertit, idcirco nequaquam haec habeat velim de caetero docendi potestatem. (Calov) (He says, therefore, that because woman taught man once and perverted everything, on that account he would that henceforth she might by no means have the power of teaching.)

Accordingly, what the Apostle forbids and denies the Christian congregation regarding the teaching of women is this: women acting as teachers in the liturgical assemblies, holding the floor in congregational assemblies, and teaching the entire congregation, instructing men.  For this cannot be reconciled with the manner and nature of women and their position toward men in accordance with nature. And this apostolic command tolerates no exception. Even a possible emergency would not justify and excuse an exception from the rule. Conversely, neither in 1 Cor. 14, nor in 1 Tim. 2 , nor anywhere else in the Scripture is every sort of teaching simply forbidden to women.  Nowhere is it forbidden them to teach children, whether it be a throng of children or whether it be on behalf of the congregation. This does not contradict the feminine character and call, nor does it conflict with feminine propriety and restraint. For children, whether they be young girls or your boys, are no men. A Christian congregation will therefore under all circumstances hold women back from the preaching office and from preaching, generally keep them within their limits, and will decisively combat every form of women’s emancipation which has caused still greater mischief in the church than in the state, but will, on the other hand, when it suggests itself, not reject the service of a talented, dependable female teacher.  Here, in order to return again to the principle consideration from above, we must distinguish three things from one another in respect to publica doctrina: 1. The administration of the Word is given over and entrusted to the congregation as a priestly right. 2.  In his Word, God himself has given certain directives to the congregation for the administration of the Word.  3. In all matters, which are not governed by the express words of Scripture, the congregation has complete freedom, only that everything which she ordains might serve the common benefit.  So it is God’s command and order that the congregation establish the preaching office under all circumstances and call persons who are fit for this office, and indeed only men, no women, and further that the congregation ensure that God’s Word is brought near to all the members of the congregation, therefore that the children also should receive their due portion of the nourishment.  Conversely, it is placed within the freedom of the congregation whether to leave the instruction and upbringing of children to the parents and the pastor alone, which of course is prohibitive in larger congregations, or whether it should ordain particular persons for the spiritual care of children and whether it wants to confer this service upon men only or women as well.

Meanwhile every congregation should also see to it that it does not misuse its freedom nor ever lose sight of the common benefit.  It would be very perverse if the congregation only wanted to employ a female teacher because she was at hand and could be had cheaper than a male teacher.  A church fellowship would fare poorly if it came to pass that female teachers competed with male teachers. It is clear that a seminary educated teacher can as a rule ceteris paris (other things being equal) accomplish more than a female teacher which has not been so thoroughly prepared.  Under which circumstances a female teacher would be appropriate should not be further debated here. But it should not be forgotten that any sort of teaching, even instruction in the lowest grade in the ABC’s of the Christian religion demands a certain capacity for teaching and a course of study.  It still does not suffice here is a young woman has progressed through good schools with success, has the necessary gifts and knowledge and understands well how to deal with children. This same young woman should, before the congregation takes her into its service, receive a particular instruction in teaching from the pastor or an experienced teacher.  In short, a congregation that has what is best for the school in mind must examine whether the women that it engages for service in the school are actually suitable for this.

It often occurs that a congregation employs a female teacher only for a predetermined period of time.  How? Does that agree with the churchly vocation of women teachers? .We answer with the counter question:  Where is there a word of Scripture which obligates the congregation to hand over all ecclesiastical services to respective persons in perpetuity?It contradicts type, nature, and task of the pastoral office, when one attaches a predetermined period of time to the bearers of the office.  The pastor should support and further the congregation step for step in knowledge and every good, so that it grows to the full measure of the age of Christ (Eph. 4:13,14). And this can only happen through constant, sustained, patient work. The entire flock is given over to the poster as to the shepherd to pasture and care, so that he can render an account for the congregation on the last day.  His is only relieved of this duty and responsibility when God himself takes her from him in some way. What obtains for the pastor office does not however hold in the same measure for all ecclesiastical auxiliaries. So elders [Gemeindevorsteher] can do what their office requires even when they are chosen only for a period of a few years.  So also, a woman teacher can absolve her task in a year with a one-year class. The Christian congregation has freedom of movement in this matter.  It is done well and serves the common benefit when an approved female teacher is called for an undetermined period of time, of course with the understanding that she is free and clear of all her commitments, when another vocation opens up for her, which is more homogenous with the female sex, for example when she has the opportunity to marry or when her abilities are otherwise needed for domestic work.  Other than that, one should also say to the female teachers themselves and emphasize what is to be considered regarding the vocation of female teachers, that by serving children they serve Christ and his congregation so that they perform their service in the fear of the Lord and with all faithfulness and diligence.

©2019 Shawn T. Barnett. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to shawn.t.barnett@gmail.com