|
Responding to the Challenge to make Women Pastors Have not all
heretics the same pretence, To plead the
Scriptures in their own defence? John Dryden Hermeneutics1. ‘Hermeneutical issues’ are repeatedly
cited as a problem at the heart of the debate about women’s ordination. This is
despite the fact of alleged agreement between the contending parties on the
authority of the Bible as God’s word. The bottom line is that it is improper to
cast doubt over clear passages by projecting onto them conclusions drawn from
one of the many competing hypotheses in modern exegetical research, say, about
what may or may not have been the case in the first-century church. Quite aside
from the fact that historical criticism is a limited and value-laden science,
this practice has led to a widespread tendency ‘to pick and choose those texts
that fit the ideology being developed and to discard those texts that
contradict it as obsolete, time-conditioned, or belonging to Jewish or
Hellenistic baggage that can be jettisoned.’[1]
The findings of historical inquiry may elucidate Scripture; they cannot be
allowed to usurp it. 2. Scripture’s inherent harmony should
not be taken to mean that the church may draw its teaching from an overall
‘gospel principle’ that, functioning in an independent, normative capacity,
trumps or negates definitive biblical commands.[2]
This false line of interpretation is nothing less than a revival of
Schleiermacher’s Schriftganze
principle which ascribes to some abstract ‘whole’ of Scripture a quality denied
to individual passages and so vacuates the church’s sedes doctrinae of all weight.[3]
Yet those who want women ordained have argued this way. In one brochure of the
Women’s Ministry Network we read: ‘When considering any theological issue it is
important to take into account the witness of the whole of Scripture, rather
than individual verses.’ It is true that justification, the chief article of
the gospel, ‘is of special service for the clear, correct understanding of the
entire Holy Scriptures.’[4]
But justification ‘is not a wandering hermeneutical principle that locks on to
a text and determines its meaning’.[5]
The Augsburg Confession defends certain practices like communion in both kinds
by appealing not to a general notion of gospel but to the explicit command
given in ‘individual verses’ - in the case just cited, ‘drink of it, all of
you’.[6]
It is incorrect to draw deductions from the gospel yet in the process ignore
‘clear Scriptural declarations relating to the assertions made’.[7] 3. The texts in question make complete
sense when viewed in the light of the story of Scripture. The Bible begins and
ends with a wedding. The story of God’s creation of Adam from the ground and
Eve from his side, and of their subsequent betrothal and union to become ‘one
flesh’ is more than just an account of human origins. It is the prophetic
adumbration of what God intends to do with all people in the union of the
second Adam, Christ, with his bride, the church - ‘the wife of the Lamb’ (Rev
21:9). In the vision of St John (Rev 12:5), this second Adam was born not just
generically as human (anthropos), but
as male (arsen). Likewise he reigns
not just generically as human, but as male (aner):
‘I promised you to one husband (andri),
to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him’ (2 Cor 11:2).
The original God-created distinction between male and female, man and woman,
has been incorporated into the very pattern of redemptive history and
eschatological salvation. The foundational story of humanity’s creation in Adam
and Eve and the culminating story of humanity’s redemption in Christ and the
church, together with the clear teaching of the New Testament about the
relationship between husband and wife, lays upon the church the obligation to
declare to the world something which it cannot learn from any other source:
what it means to be man or woman before God, and what God finally intends by
making us this way. 4. On the question of headship, clearly
much turns upon what is meant by kephale
(head). Proponents of woman’s ordination have tried to advance the meaning
‘source’ to the exclusion of any notion of authority. But when the writers of
the New Testament want to indicate this sense they always use the preposition ‘ek’: Christ is ‘the head’ or source
‘from which’ flow life and power and growth to the body (Eph 4:16; Col 2:19).
Quite distinct are the parallel uses of kephale
pertinent to our passage. These speak of Christ as ‘the head of all things’
(Eph 1:22), ‘the head of the church’ (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18), ‘the head of all
principality and power’ (Col 2:10), all of which indicate Christ’s authority
and lordship over both creation and the church. The same construction occurs in
Ephesians 5:23 where the husband is again called ‘the head of his wife’,
representing Christ to her in his maleness and role of husband in a
non-duplicative way. Two exhaustive studies have definitively ruled out any
claim that kephale in these passages
does not involve the notion of authority.[8] Analogy of Marriage5. Christian theology has long held, in
harmony with Ephesians 5, that the specificity of man’s and woman’s respective
obligations in marriage is designed to manifest the more mysterious
relationship between Christ and his body, the church, a relationship concretely
enacted in the vocational relationship between pastor and congregation. C. S.
Lewis observes, One of the ends for which sex
was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the
functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between
Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and seminal
figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about
as if they were mere geometrical figures.[9]
Or, putting it otherwise, husband and
wife, Christ and church, pastor and people are not simply two ends of a uniform
equilibrium. Brunner puts it well: ‘Here, with absolute finality, the body is
body and the head is head, unchangeable and unexchangeable…. In this analogical
relation, the man is purposely accorded the place of Christ and the woman the
place of the church.’[10] Jesus and Women6. Karl Rahner once tried to explain
Jesus’ and the apostles’ behaviour in excluding women from the apostolate in
terms of ‘the cultural and social environment of their day, in which they not
only acted but could not have acted other than they did.’[11]
But this is to reduce the significance of Jesus’ words and actions to the
vicissitudes of historic circumstance, entirely overlooking the divine
character of his mission (Lk 24:44; Jn 6:38; 12:49). Theology then becomes
sociology; exegesis becomes cultural analysis. 7. It is implausible to argue that in
prohibiting women from preaching Paul was simply accomodating the Jewish
cultural sensitivities of the Corinthian congregation.[12]
If ‘cultural mores’ were the determining factor, why does Paul admonish men to
pray with heads uncovered (1 Cor
11:4), a practice apparently contrary to the ancient Jewish (and pagan) custom
of men praying with heads veiled?[13]
And if it was customary for women to function as priests in the Hellenistic
cults, why does Paul rule against this in 1 Corinthians 14:34? Clearly the
Apostle envisages an order in worship ‘dictated’ neither by Hellenistic nor
Jewish cultural mores, but by the pattern given in Genesis 1-3 and confirmed by
the express ‘command of the Lord.’ What does ‘Authority’ mean?8. Supporters of women’s ordination have
often proposed that authentein, which
occurs only here in the New Testament, means ‘to dominate’. They take it in an
adverbial sense, so that coupled with didaskein,
they say the sentence merely prohibits women from teaching ‘in a domineering
way’.[14]
But Köstenberger’s definitive study, mentioned in the LTJ article (p. 29, fn.
10), shows that verbs linked by oude
(nor), as didaskein and authentein are here, ‘invariably bear a
parallel semantic character.’[15]
Examples directly from his study include: ·
Matthew
6:20: ‘neither break in nor steal’ ·
Acts
9:9: ‘neither ate nor drank’ ·
Galatians
4:14: ‘neither despised nor rejected’ ·
Philippians
2:16: ‘neither ran nor laboured’ ·
1
Timothy 2:12: ‘neither to teach nor to have authority’ ·
Hebrews
13:5: ‘never leave nor forsake’ ·
1
John 3:6: ‘neither seen him nor known him.’ It can be seen from these representative
examples that oude is a
co-ordinating, not a subordinating conjunction. A. T. Robertson noted this
‘continuative sense’ of oude long
ago: ‘carrying on the negative with no idea of contrast.’[16]
In other words, when it is used to connect two verbs, the second verb does not
function like an adverb, merely qualifying the first. Rather the second verb
possesses its own integrity that contributes to the overall meaning of the
phrase. Neither does the second verb indicate an action markedly different in
value from the first verb. Rather, the two verbs linked by oude always share either a positive value or a negative value. 9. This grammatical evidence only
confirms what G. W. Knight demonstrated in a detailed philological study of authentein in extant Greek literature. I
provide here the pertinent conclusion: [T]he broad concept of
authority is virtually present everywhere…. The word ‘authority’ itself is
utilized by most of the translators and lexicographers. The ‘authority’ in view
in the documents is understood to be a positive concept and is in no way regarded
as having any overtone of misuse of position or power, i.e., to ‘domineer’.[17] To summarise, authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 cannot mean ‘to domineer’ or ‘lord it
over’ (in a pejorative sense), still less ‘to murder’. Rather, it means ‘to
exercise authority’ and, like the action of communicating the apostolic didaskalia, possesses a positive value
in the worshipping assembly under the conditions proper to the appropriate
ordering and exercise of the ministry. Theologically Astute Women10. The New Testament already tells us
about the prominent and influential role played by women in the early expansion
of Christianity. Of the forty or so people named and greeted in the Pauline
letters, at least fifteen were women. Several congregations met in homes owned by
wealthy women who apparently served as patronesses of the new movement as it
grew apart from the synagogue. The LTJ article acknowledges the activity of
female prophetesses, alongside of which we could add the part played by women
in supporting the apostolic ministry and in giving leadership in domestic and
economic affairs. The later (4th c.) catechetical and diaconal
offices of women were foreshadowed in
nuce in the New Testament, where we read that Priscilla, together with her
husband Aquila, ‘explained the way of God more accurately’ to Apollos, an
already well-catechised student of Scripture (Ac 18:24-26). It is noteworthy
that Priscilla’s name is listed in the text before Aquila’s, but to say on that
basis that she ‘took the lead from her husband’[18]
goes beyond the evidence. The pastoral epistles hint at a specifically female
order devoted to prayer, that of widows, which by the early third century was
firmly and widely established. In contrast to rabbinic Judaism, Christian women
were encouraged to undertake theological education. Origen’s lectures in
Alexandria were well attended by women; Gregory of Nyssa received his basic
religious instruction from his sister Macrina; and Jerome dedicated his
biblical commentaries to erudite women whom he knew could read and understand
them and critically engage with him on the basis of the original biblical
languages.[19] 11. From the third century at
least women were in fact ordained to
a formal diaconate whose functions included assisting the bishop in the
baptisms of women, the administration of convents, and the oversight of
charitable activities.[20]
But they were not admitted to the priesthood, the name given by the early
church to the New Testament office of preaching the word and presiding at the
eucharist. There were, of course,
exceptions. As mentioned in the LTJ article (p. 31), the few known to us are
attested in gnostic circles and a small number of heretical sects, a fact that
fits well with what we know of the gnostic propensity to deny the significance
of created bodily distinctions. As Weinrich observes, In their denial of the
creation, the Gnostics refused to take seriously any fleshly, creaturely
differences…. Against the Gnostic, to maintain a distinction of male and female
function was to confess a creation theology that respected the concrete,
fleshly differences between man and woman.[21]
Later,
at the time of the Reformation, these gnostic impulses were revived among
various spiritualist groups. Going against evangelical catholic teaching and
practice, the Society of Friends, the first church group in the modern era to
admit women to the equivalent of the teaching office, denied the continuing
applicability of the apostolic injunctions. Indeed, ‘their strong emphasis on
the interiority of the Spirit militated against any distinctions in church
life.’[22]
To this day spiritualist churches remain the most open to women ministers, with
the highest percentage of female clergy being found in the American sect, the Unitarian Universalist
Association. 12. In questioning the permanent and
universal scope of the biblical commands in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy
2:12, supporters of women’s ordination have pointed out that in other
occurrences in the New Testament, the verb ‘to permit’, used in both commands,
‘refers to a highly specific situation, limited to the time and place where the
order is given.’[23] As rightly stated in the LTJ
article (p. 33), what is omitted in this argument however is that 1 Corinthians
14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are the only two passages in the whole New Testament
where the verb ‘to permit’ is preceded by a negative (‘not’). All other uses
occur without the negative. This
changes the sense of the verb altogether. Moreover, common sense tells us that
the question of permanency with respect to permission depends entirely on what
it is that is, or is not, being permitted. If your teenage son asks whether he
can go to the movies with his friends this Friday night, you may concede, ‘Yes,
I permit you to go.’ The request, and therefore the answer, refers to a
‘specific situation’, limited to certain conditions respecting time, place,
company and activity. Presumably he will ask anew if he wants to go again on
Saturday night. But if he asks whether he can go with his friends to a certain
rave club this Friday night, your probable response, ‘No, I do not permit you
to go’, given on the basis of what you know about rave clubs, carries a
permanency independent of the specific conditions attached to the original
request. It would be highly disingenuous to interpret the scope of your command
as merely limited to this specific Friday night, or to that specific group of
friends, or to this specific rave club. 13. Galatians 3:28 has emerged as the number one proof text in the quest
to have women ordained. While when viewed in context it actually has nothing to
say about how the church should order its ministry, few could state as
radically as Luther the far-reaching impact of baptism upon distinctions in
family and society: For in Christ all social stations,
even those that were divinely ordained, are nothing…. [I]n Christ, that is, in
the matter of salvation, they amount to nothing….[24] Yet, as Luther goes on to explain, this
negation is simply the flip-side of what it means to be saved through Christ alone
to the exclusion of any human advantage, that is, of anything positively
considered from a human point of view. It does not negate the various
‘stations’ proper to life in the world, whether of Jew or Greek, male or
female, employee or employer and so on.[25]
Rather it negates their capacity to remove sin and contribute to salvation. ‘Of
course, God has various ordinances, laws, styles of life, and forms of worship
in the world.’ These remain the normative avenues by which we seek to fulfil
the will of God in the world. ‘They do not achieve anything to merit grace,’[26]
yet neither are they to be neglected, parodied or scorned. Indeed, In the world and according to
the flesh there is a very great difference and inequality among persons, and this must be observed very carefully.
For if a woman wanted to be a man, if a son wanted to be a father, if a pupil
wanted to be a teacher, if a servant wanted to be a master, if a subject wanted
to be a magistrate – there would be a disturbance and confusion of all social
stations and of everything.[27] Proponents for women’s ordination
often appeal to ‘the inclusivity of the gospel’ or ‘the principle of equality’.[28]
As the argument goes, the ‘religious equality’ of the baptised before God,
which proponents find attested attested in Galatians 3:26-28, is said in
addition to possess corresponding ‘social implications in terms of status,
privilege, and opportunity.’[29]
From ‘equal status’ before God one is supposed to leap straight to ‘equal
opportunity’ in society and church. It must be agreed that
regeneration certainly entails renewal at the spiritual, moral and social
levels. As members of Christ’s body, believers are enabled – and obliged – to
embody a radically new mode of personal conduct and human relations aimed at
the spiritual edification of the body and the praise of God’s glory. But does
the new ‘status’ conferred by God on the baptised negate his or her respective
‘station’ in life, whether in the civic, domestic, or ecclesial sphere? Does
the gospel grant a person the right to lay claim to functions otherwise denied
them by their respective order and station in life, thus abrogating the
fundamental pattern for created existence set in place by the wisdom of God? If
this were the case, then every passage of New Testament paraenesis on
vocational order would be meaningless except as a window onto the antiquated
and culturally diverse practices of the first century church. Luther rightly recognised the
error in this way of thinking as it manifested itself in his own time in two
extremes: the spiritual enthusiasm of the heavenly prophets and the gospel
reductionism of the antinomians. To the extent that the law of the old covenant
embodied legal or cultic norms beyond those embedded in the order of creation
or ‘natural law’, it has been abrogated with the advent of Christ.
Nevertheless, ‘where the Mosaic law and the natural law are one, there the law
remains and is not abrogated externally….’[30]
Both Luther and the Confessions agree that this natural law, which far from
being abrogated was actually confirmed and fulfilled in Christ, continues to
possess determinative status with respect to the normative shape of ministry,
marriage, and society. So, as Luther explains in the Large Catechism, while
before God parents and children are perfectly equal, in relation to one another
they are to preserve a certain inequality and difference proper to their
God-ordained station.[31]
With respect to marriage and society, the Confessions uphold the principle that
the gospel overthrows neither marriage nor civil authority, but ‘requires that
all these be kept as true orders of God.’[32]
And with respect to the office of the ministry, Luther states that while in
emergencies women and even children may carry out its functions, the Holy
Spirit chooses ‘only competent males to fill this office.’ For ‘even nature and
God’s creation makes this distinction…. The gospel… does not abrogate this
natural law, but confirms it as the ordinance and creation of God.’[33]
From this we learn that the
various orders or inequalities inscribed by God for the good of ministry,
marriage and society are not done away through baptism, but rather confirmed
and consecrated as the means by which God has chosen to fulfil his ‘good and
gracious will’ in all creation. They can only become ‘legalistic’ to the extent
that they are abused or rejected. WO and Homosexuality14. Despite protests to the contrary and
cries of ‘scare tactics’, I’m afraid it is necessary to stress this link in the
present debate in view of attempts by church bodies worldwide to use Galatians
3:28 to defend the legitimacy of homosexual relations. One would hardly think
to relate the two issues were it not for disconcerting parallels in the
hermeneutics and logic used to defend both women’s ordination and same sex
relations. Both are presented as issues of gospel, equality, acceptance, and
adaptation to prevailing cultural norms. Both involve the charge of exclusion
or discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.[34]
Already back in 1981 the Gay Christian Movement, especially influential in the
Anglican communion, spoke of ‘the necessary link between gay liberation and the
ordination of women.’[35]
Well-known proponent for women’s ordination, Gilbert Bilezikian, speaks of the
Bible’s clearly-defined sexual roles as ‘bondages from which the gospel can set
us free’.[36] Conclusion15. The LCA should be under no
illusion as to what the ordination of women entails. Self-avowed partisan for
women’s ordination in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Mary Todd, admits
that ‘the root question is about… the authority of scripture.’[37]
When the Bible Commission of the Swedish Lutheran Church examined the question
of women’s ordination, it acknowledged that it was the clear ‘command of the
Lord’, expressed in 1 Corinthians 14, that women not be admitted to the
teaching office. Nevertheless, the Swedish Lutherans went on to ordain women
anyhow, since it was thought permissible and, in view of changed societal
circumstances, even necessary, to disregard that command.[38]
Logic suggests what follows
from this kind of attitude. History proves it. John Reumann, who lays claim to
having helped usher in women pastors in the (now) Evangelical Lutheran Church
of America (ELCA), admits that ordaining women ‘cannot help but reshape the
ministry itself and ultimately all theology.’[39]
Now that that has occurred, other ELCA pastors are having second thoughts: Years ago, C. S. Lewis said
that should the Church opt to ordain women, it would very quickly find that it
had brought about a whole new religion. Now, barely a generation removed from
this decision, when one looks at the ELCA, his words have an uncanny prescience
to them.[40] Adam G. Cooper September, 2005 Geelong[1] Karl P. Donfried, ‘Alien
Hermeneutics and the Misappropriation of Scripture’, in Carl E. Braaten and
Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Reclaiming the
Bible for the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 32. [2] This line of argumentation,
in which the material principle of Scripture is played off against the formal,
has been used in a number of studies for women’s ordination, most notably that
by Norman Habel and Shirley Wurst, ‘The Gospel and Women in the Ministry’, LTJ 28:3 (1994), 129-34. [3] See Peter Koehne, ‘The Return
of the Schriftganze’, Forum News (December 1996), 9-11. [4] Apology IV, German text, quoted in TA VIII.5. [5] Koehne, ‘The Return of the Schriftganze’, 10. [6] Augsburg Confession [AC] XXII.1-2; cf. AC XXIII.3-5. [7] ‘Towards a Common Understanding on the Authority of Scripture’, Doctrinal Statements and Theological Opinions, B13. [8] Joseph Fitzmeyer, ‘Kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3’, Interpretation 47:1 (1993), 52-59; Wayne
Grudem, ‘The Meaning of kefalh/ (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged’,
in idem. (ed.), Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, Illinois:
Crossways Books, 2002), 145-202. [9] ‘Priestesses in the Church?’
in C. S. Lewis, Essay Collection and
Other Short Pieces, ed. Lesley Walmsley (London: Harper Collins, 2000),
401. [10] Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women, 28-9. [11] Karl Rahner, ‘Priestertum der
Frau?’, Stimmen der Zeit 195 (1977),
299, quoted by Manfred Hauck, Women in
the Priesthood? (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 22. [12] This argument has been
advanced by the Women’s Ministry Network:
‘In order for the Gospel to be proclaimed without the church being
brought into disrepute, cultural mores dictated that women should not be
speaking.’ Women’s Ministry Network brochure, distributed with the WMN Newsletter (June 2004). [13] See 2 Cor 3:13-15; also
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 823-6. [14] See J. G. Strelan and V. C.
Pfitzner, ‘Do 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 clearly support the
LCA’s stance on the ordination of women?’, unpublished paper (October, 1994),
12-13; [15] Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘Syntactical Background Studies to 1 Timothy 2.12 in the New Testament and Extrabiblical Greek Literature’, in Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and other Topics in Biblical Greek (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 156-79. [16] Quoted in George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (The New
International Greek Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 141. [17] George W. Knight, ‘AUQENTEW in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2.12’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 150-1. A summary of Knight’s analysis was presented to the CTICR by Elmore Leske in a study on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, dated March 1995. [18] ‘An Argument for also
Ordaining Women’, (date?), 5. [19] Hauck, Women in the Priesthood?, 432-4. [20] See Hauck, ‘Excursus on Deaconesses’ in Women in the Priesthood?, 440-44. [21] William Weinrich, ‘Women in
the History of the Church: Learned and Holy, but not Pastors’, in John Piper
and Wayne Grudem (eds.), Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1991), 274. [22] Weinrich, ‘Women in the
History of the Church’, 278. [23] Peter Lockwood, unpublished
essay on 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (1998), 3. [24] LW 26.354. [25] This is spelled out in the
recent study by Richard Hove, ‘Does Galatians 3:28 Negate Gender-Specific
Roles?’, in Grudem, Biblical Foundations
for Manhood and Womanhood, 105-44. See also Ed. L. Miller, ‘Is Galatians
3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?’, The
Expository Times 114 (Oct 2002 – Sept 2003), 9-11; S. Lewis Johnson, ‘Role
Distinctions in the Church: Galatians 3:28’, in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,
148-60. [26] LW 26.355. [27] LW 26.356. Italics added. [28] ‘The Ordination of Women:
Initial Report of the Commission on Theology and Interchurch Relations’,
(date?), 4. [29] Document entitled ‘An Argument for also Ordaining Women’ (date?), 1. [30] LW 40.97. [31] LC I.108. [32] AC XVI.5. [33] LW 41.154-5. [34] See Jonathon Sorum, ‘Why we
can’t talk: The homosexual rights movement in the church’, Lutheran Forum (Pentecost/Summer 2003), 17-27; Leonard Klein, ‘The
Reappearing Question of the Ordination of Women’, Lutheran Forum (Pentecost/Summer 2003), 67-70. [35] Quoted in Sean Gill (ed.), The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement:
Campaigning for Justice, Truth and Love (London and New York: Cassell,
1998), 33. [36] Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of
Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 208. [37] Mary Todd, Authority Vested: A Story of Identity and
Change in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 2. [38] G. A. Danell, ‘Die
Bibelkommission und die Zulassung der Frau zum Pastorenamt’, in E. Wagner
(ed.), De Fundamentis Ecclesiae:
Gedenkschrift für Pastor Dr. theol. H. Lieberg (Brunswick, 1973), cited in
Hauck, Women in the Priesthood?, 474. [39] John H. P. Reumann, Ministries Examined: Laity, Clergy, Women,
and Bishops in a Time of Change (Minneapolis: Augbsurg, 1987), 124. [40] Louis A. Smith, ‘How my Mind
has Changed’, Lutheran Forum
(Easter/Spring, 2004), 52. |