The paper is published with the author’s permission.
Thank you to Archbishop Jānis Vanags and the organisers of this conference for inviting me to speak on this topic, which, as you can imagine, is close to my heart.
On the 20th anniversary of the ordination of women in Latvia – photo from Indra Skuja-Grīsle
Introduction
The outline of the address: my intention is not to try to refute every possible thesis that would call into question the fact that the ordination of women is not in conflict with the Bible, and is a development of church tradition rather than a denial of or falling away from the true, pure faith. You can find the theological arguments in summary form either in the document from the Lutheran Church of Australia, or in pastor Mārtiņš Urdze’s article. Instead
I will give a brief overview of the ordination of women in the Lutheran world;
as an example I will mention the Lutheran Church of Australia’s discussions of this question in recent years
I will examine the basis for the discussions
I will examine one of the classical texts in summary form
I will briefly comment on what Martin Luther said about women
I will examine one particular aspect – the impact of the ordination of women on ecumenical relations
But first a little about myself, so that you may know what life experiences have brought me here and shaped me as a pastor. I was born in London, into a refugee family; my father Alberts Jērums was a composer, choir conductor, organiser and chief conductor of the Song Festival, and a long-serving organist in Latvian and Estonian congregations in London. My mother Lauma, née Grigors, was the daughter of pastor Augusts Grigors; he, in turn, was in the first graduating class of the Faculty of Theology in the spring of 1924, was ordained as a pastor, and founded the Riga Christ Congregation, with its special ministry to the blind, because my grandfather himself was blind. Unfortunately, he was not destined to serve for long, because already in 1926 he died as a result of an accident.
My grandmother, Charlotte, my mother Lauma, and my grandfather pastor Augusts Grigors
Growing up in London’s very active Latvian community, helping my father with community work, also studying music on the side and at times assisting him at the organ, the life of the Latvian congregations in exile was an integral part of my childhood and youth; likewise, both in me and in my husband a love for Latvia was instilled, and a dream that at some point we would nevertheless be able to ‘return’ to Latvia.
I turned to theological studies relatively late, when the children had already grown up; and since my ordination in 1997 I have served both in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia Abroad and in the Lutheran Church in Great Britain. I was also a dean of the church, and later a bishop; I served on the board of the Council of Lutheran Churches in Great Britain, in the Anglican-Lutheran Society as Moderator, in Churches Together in England as President. I have also taken part in ecumenical dialogues and conferences, representing either LELBĀL or the Lutherans of Great Britain.
I tell all this not for the sake of self-promotion, but in order to explain that the church and ministry are almost written into my genes; and also that what happens in the church in Latvia is extremely significant to me. I am not, and cannot be, indifferent to this part of the body of Christ which has cherished me, and which I have for many years loved and served.
The ordination of women in Lutheran churches
In this section I will speak mainly about the Lutheran churches that belong to the LWF, so first let us recall a little, just what the Lutheran World Federation is.
The LWF consists of
145 churches
in 98 countries
>72 million Christians
For comparison – the International Lutheran Council (ILC) – 30 churches; 4.3 million members
President Bishop Munib Younan (Mounib Younan), bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land
1st from left – Bishop Younan, in the Good Friday procession in Jerusalem in 2015
The LWF was founded in 1947 as an association of Lutheran churches. Lutherans throughout the world wished to acknowledge their guilt in the Second World War, to reflect, to achieve mutual reconciliation and to respond with joint diaconal work to the humanitarian crisis that followed WWII.
The LWF’s priorities today: theology, ecumenical relations and dialogues; united (holistic) mission and diaconal work
The LWF ‘Department for World Service’ (budget EUR 88.2 million)
So out of this large communion of churches, how many ordain women? 77% of the churches ordain, and they include 93% of the LWF’s Lutherans.
The churches of the International Lutheran Council do not ordain women; the largest church of the ILC is, of course, the Missouri Synod (about 3.3 of the 4.3 million), and there too an organisation has formed that is trying to stimulate discussion about the ordination of women.
Of course, the fact that the great majority of Lutheran churches ordain women does not in itself mean that it is ipso facto correct, that it corresponds to God’s will, or that the ELCL should adapt and also resume ordaining. Quite the contrary: the LWF, as a communion of churches – a federation with certain features of communion – does not categorically require of its churches that they have a single view on all matters, or that there should be one, supposedly correct, model of church governance; and the LWF tries to encourage each church to approach questions of church governance in as open and responsible a manner as possible.
But one thing for sure: all the churches that have decided to ordain women have done so deliberately; after long discussions, prayers, deliberations in congregations, synods, dioceses, conferences, etc. It has not been the case that it was simply a submission to the spirit of the times, or an appeal to human rights, or under the influence of the secular movement for women’s equality; it is not the case that all these churches, from Finland to India, and from Hong Kong to Russia, would not have read the Bible, tried to understand it and apply it to their lives and their churches.
The Lutheran churches that ordain women, then, have come to the conclusion that
the ordination of women can be justified or vindicated by the word of God, as it is found in the Bible
Or at least that the ordination of women is not in conflict with the Word of God
that the ordination of women is not irreconcilable with the evangelical Lutheran faith, its confessions, the foundations and development of theology, and
that the ordination of women is not irreconcilable with the traditions of the Lutheran churches
So the first principle that I would like to note is this: in this discussion it is necessary that everyone respect one another. It really does not foster reconciliation and coexistence if we throw insults around – if the supporters of the ordination of women are called servants of Satan and heretics; and if the opponents are called backward and haters of women. Let us respect one another, as is fitting for Christian sisters and Christian brothers.
As an example of a good process, let us turn to the Lutheran Church of Australia, which has for a long time been deliberating the ordination of women and questions related to it.
The Lutheran Church of Australia – a valuable example
In 1966, when the LCA was born from the merger of the two previous Australian Lutheran churches, the basic position of the new church on the ordination of women was stated thus:
“Though women prophets were used by the Spirit of God in the Old as well as in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14 prohibit a woman from being called into the office of the public ministry for the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments.”
So: although the Spirit of God spoke through prophetesses in both the Old and the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 prohibit the calling of women into public ministry for the proclamation of the Word of God and the administration of the Sacraments.” In English too it sounds strange, by the way – women are prohibited the calling, not the ministry.
So the LCA does not ordain women either, and one could say that on the whole it has belonged to the so-called conservative wing of the church, although for various reasons it has always had a tendency towards factionalism, and at times towards very sharp changes of opinion. The LCA, by the way, has observer status in both the LWF and the ILC.
But already very soon after the 1966 merger, the question of the ordination of women began to appear. One reason for this was the fact that when the previous churches merged, there was no discussion about the ordination of women, because the positions of both churches were the same. Besides, given that many of the LCA’s partner churches had begun to ordain women, the LCA’s Commission on Theology and Inter-Church Relations began a lengthy study of this question. At the Synod in 2000 this commission presented its view – namely that
„after many years of study of the two main biblical texts, as well as other, related, biblical texts, of theological arguments for and against the ordination of women, and after intense discussions and debates, the majority of the commission’s members supported the view that – all things considered – the Bible does not prohibit the ordination of women. This nuanced decision indicated that the biblical evidence against the ordination of women was not as strong as the evidence that women are permitted to be ordained.”
This same commission a few years later also prepared the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments in summary form; you have all been given a document (2 A4 pages) with a summary of the ‘for’ arguments.
In addition, in the LCA and its congregations there have been discussion evenings for laypeople and pastors, theological forums and discussions; and in recent years this website has also been created – ‘Ordination – We’re Listening’ [OWL – owl]. On this site (I know that you cannot see it all) there are 28 documents, booklets and other resources that congregations and individuals can use to help shape the discussion.
The LCA Synod has voted 3 times on permitting the ordination of women in its church – in 2000, in 2006 and quite recently – in 2015. Each time more than 50% of the delegates have voted in favour; but since it is a matter of a constitutional amendment, a two-thirds (66%) majority of delegates is required: this year there were 64% of the votes. Consequently, the LCA does not amend its Constitution, and the ordination of women is still not permitted.
Of course, this process too has had its sharp moments, and it goes without saying that people on both sides of the discussion have at times felt offended, even hurt. But on the whole, looking from afar, and as far as I understand from acquaintances in Australia, the process itself has been valuable, allowing both pastors and laypeople to delve into the biblical texts, and allowing opponents to meet in a so-called safe space, and to really not only talk, but also to listen to one another.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
„34 Let the women keep silence in the congregation, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them remain in the obedience prescribed by the law. 35 But if they wish to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the congregation.”
A great deal has been written about this text and its exegesis. You can yourselves look at prof. Dace Balode’s article, published on the ALLWT website, for example; any Bible commentary will also have a view, and among the better books that examine both epistles to the Corinthians exhaustively is Ben Witherington’s Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians[2]; but there are many such.
So – to summarise the main arguments specifically about this text
A great deal has been said and written about whether 33b-35 is a later interpolation in the text. I do not intend to repeat it all here, because that would require a whole separate paper. On the one hand, the text is also more logical without the interpolation; and there is also contradictory evidence about whether these verses were part of the original epistle. In some early manuscripts it appears in this place, in others not; in some (Western manuscripts) it is located after verse 40, where it also sounds, as it were, more logical. Who inserted it, at what point – that is probably impossible to prove. But one fairly convincing argument is the following: “The most striking evidence for this [that Paul is not the author of these verses] is the fact that verses 34-35 are located after verse 40 in several Western Church manuscripts. Because of this relocation of the text, many scholars believe that verses 34-35 were originally an annotation in the margins of the page of 1 Corinthians, written by a ‘non-Pauline’ hand; but over time were inserted into later manuscripts (after verse 33 in some, after verse 40 in others)”[3] So says Philip Abbott at Pepperdine University. In any case, a great deal has been written about this topic – the Latvian Aļesja Lavrinoviča also has a study, which unfortunately I could not find in time; but I have no doubt that we can do so and send it, if anyone is interested.
More interesting, in fact, is the general context of the verses. First of all, it must be remembered that Paul writes this epistle to the new church in Corinth as a response to the problems, conflicts and questions that had arisen there. This really is an epistle written to particular people, in a context familiar to Paul, and on very specific questions. In this part of the epistle (from chapters 11 to 14) Paul writes about how the church members must regulate the conduct of worship services, and how Christians must behave in worship services; as it is said in 14:40 – Yet let everything be done decently and in order; and 14:23 – If, then, the whole congregation comes together, and all speak in tongues, and some uninformed people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are mad? So one of Paul’s aims in writing this epistle is to preserve order in the church, so that it would not be a scandal – a stumbling block – to unbelievers. So says Professor Karen Bloomquist, dean of the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, former head of the LWF Department for Theology:
“It is possible to accept these texts as authoritative, yet still read them as permitting the ordination of women. The context of 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is that worship in the early church had probably become disorderly, and was bringing the new faith into disrepute. Paul, who in many other texts accepted the equality and participation of women, here falls back on his patriarchal biases, and calls for the silencing of the women as one possible solution to the situation. Paul called for women to keep quiet in order to achieve order and conformity to the local culture, so that the gospel could be heard and not publicly discredited. In most societies today, public speaking by women is neither culturally offensive nor does it lead to disorder…. Further, in contexts today, prohibiting women from preaching is more likely to discredit the church and the gospel. In other words, the intent of 1 Corinthians 14 is likely to be more effectively achieved today by doing the very opposite of what Paul was calling for then![4]
A slightly different view: “The argument is not gender specific. Paul requires respect, submission, and silence of any listener when any prophet is speaking (vv. 28-32), and his dealing with women who ask questions is a specific implementation of general principles already applied earlier to everyone. One must assume that he singles these women out for comment because he had heard that they were notably violating these principles. Throughout the chapter Paul is correcting abuses, and his words must be read in that context.”[5]
From these few examples, both about the integrity of the text and about its context, one can also understand how greatly views differ among Christians, theologians, New Testament scholars and professors.
A couple more thoughts. First, about the word with which this prohibited activity of women is described, namely to speak; λαλεῖν. In my Greek lexicon this word is translated into English as talk, speak, utter, babble; surely there will be someone here who can correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can understand, this word is not applied to preaching – or proclaiming, the proclamation of the word of God, as it is described in the New Testament. The words that describe preaching are παρήγγειλλω, εὐαγγελιζω, καταγγελλω, κηρύσσω; also, regarding Mary Magdalene’s preaching/message in John 20:18 – αγγελλω. But peculiarly, the word λαλεῖν is used in 1 Cor 14:39 – So then, brothers, strive to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues; also, for example, in verse 29: But let those who prophesy speak two or three, and let the others weigh what is said. So the word λαλεῖν here is applied to speaking in tongues, and also to prophesying, and one might think that these verses refer to that, prohibiting women from prophesying. But; in chapter 11, where Paul considers head coverings, it is written thus: ‘And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head’ (11:4); and in Acts 21:9 Luke writes that the evangelist Philip had four daughters, virgins, who prophesied. °
One explanation for the prohibition on women in congregations (assemblies – ἐκκλησία, however we wish to translate it) is this; it was undoubtedly the case that in the 1st century women had a lower level of education. They rarely wrote and read, not to mention theological education. And the Greek practice, for example at the Oracle of Delphi, was a dialogue of those present with the oracle’s prophetess; it is possible that in Corinth the women also interrupted the worship service with questions, and that is why Paul says that they should ask their husbands for answers at home. The other variant – if, similarly to the synagogues, the women sat together, did not take part in the worship service but simply gossiped, they disturbed the course of the worship service.
And finally: What do we conclude? In my opinion, that it is difficult from these verses, especially in the context of the whole New Testament, to conclude even what the practice of the early church regarding women actually was, let alone to think that we can transfer it in some literal way to our ‘ekklesias’ in the 21st century. If we really hold that we want to translate these verses literally, apply them to modern churches and command women to keep silent in congregations, then it is a simple matter: then women must not speak or preach at all, lead prayers, read the readings – not to mention being able to serve as assistant pastors, evangelists, those fulfilling the duties of a pastor, or the like. For this is not about Paul prohibiting the ordination of women. Ordination, after all, is a question of calling and church order; as Martin Luther writes in his 1523 treatise to the Bohemian Hussites, Sacerdotum non esse quod presbyterum vel ministrum, illum nasce, hunc fieri; A priest is not the same as a presbyter or minister – into the first one is born, the second one becomes.[6] That is, every one of us belongs to the priesthood of Christ – the priesthood of all believers and the baptised; but a pastor we become through God’s call, the church’s confirmation and consecration/ordination.
Martin Luther and women
As in many questions, Luther’s thoughts about women and their role in the church and in life are characterised by two factors; first, there is no single definitive text in which Luther, so to speak, sets out his thoughts and theological positions regarding women neatly on the shelves. What we know about his views must be extracted from several sources, including Luther’s letters to his wife Katharina von Bora. Second, Luther is at times contradictory in his views. Besides, it is worth us remembering, as the English writer L. P. Hartley said, the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. Listening to Luther’s statements with today’s ears and sociological sensibilities, at times we will turn pale and be surprised by his views, his brutal language and coarseness.
A few notes about Luther, then. Luther’s thoughts about woman in general:
”Dr. Martin Luther mocked his Käthe, who wanted to be wise, and said: ‘God created man with a broad chest, not with broad hips, so that in that part of his body he might be wise; but the part from which the filth comes is small. In the case of a woman it is the other way round. That is why she has so much filth and so little wisdom.”[7]
“A woman cannot be trusted. It is said of women that no secret can be entrusted to them. Luther replied: ‘The old proverbs forbid it. For what goes in through a woman’s ears comes out through her mouth. For this reason, secrets can be entrusted only to a dead woman.’”[8]
At the same time, Luther’s letters to his wife are touching, full of love and respect. At times he also calls Käthe his lord, his doctor, etc. Luther’s writings and sermons about Mary are also wonderful, although he also warns against mariolatry, and against the medieval church’s tendency to make Mary into a goddess.
Martin Luther’s wife, Katharina von Bora – from http://www.evlks.de/leben_und_glauben/kirche_und_welt/20502.html
In his lectures on the Book of Genesis, Luther also clearly states that, in his view, the Bible describes Eve (and through her, all women) as the weaker sex. “The woman seems to be something somewhat different from the man, with different members and a much weaker nature. Although Eve was a wonderful creature, similar to Adam as far as the image of God is concerned, that is, in righteousness, wisdom and happiness, she is nevertheless a woman. For, as the sun is more excellent than the moon (although the moon too is excellent), so also the woman, although a wonderful creature of God, is nevertheless not equal to the man in glory and renown”[9].
So we understand that, like the people of his time, Luther did not consider women equal to men.
In 1532 Luther wrote a treatise whose English title is ‘Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers’. It was written in opposition to the Anabaptists: but what is interesting is that thoughts about women also appear there. The context is this: first Luther considers women in the Old Testament, Deborah, Sarah, Hannah, etc., and says that he is surprised that the Anabaptists do not use these women as authority for the preaching of women in the 16th century. I quote:
“But indeed they [i.e. the OT women] did not behave as the ‘infiltrators’ do – without authority, and out of a sense of superior piety and wisdom. For then God would not have confirmed their ministry, and acted through miracles and great works [there follows a somewhat contradictory thought, that nevertheless in the NT the Holy Spirit forbids women to speak in the church, even though Philip’s 4 daughters prophesied] But in congregations and churches, where there is a ministry, there women must keep silent and they must not preach.”[10]
Further, in the 1539 treatise On Councils and the Church Luther writes: “It is true, however, that the Holy Spirit has excepted women, children and incompetent people from this ministry, but chooses (except in emergency cases/critical situations = emergencies) only competent males to serve in this office”[11]
Elsewhere Luther also speaks of women being permitted to teach one another, and praises the prophetess Anna, adding that it was possible for her to devote herself to prophesying because she was a widow.
Although Luther appeals to the aforementioned text from 1 Corinthians, as well as to the epistle to Timothy, and to the Holy Spirit’s command for women to keep silent (through Paul), most often his arguments against the preaching of women are based on their level of education, and on Luther’s thought that women are more stupid and more flighty than men, created as moons beside the suns of men.
It seems to me that Luther in fact does not cite ontological reasons why women could not preach; quite the contrary, he allows that in certain exceptional cases they may do so. Luther also holds that women may prophesy, and (in my opinion) not very convincingly separates prophesying from preaching. In the 1532 treatise there is also this passage: “If God wishes to accomplish something that would be superior to this order of office and calling, and to elevate someone above the prophets, He will show it with signs and works, just as he made the donkey speak (Numbers 22). ….When God does not do this, we must remain obedient to the offices and powers that have already been provided.”[12]
The ecumenical world and the ordination of women
In closing I wanted to turn a little to the ecumenical dimension, not from a theoretical or theological point of view, but from my own observations and experience.
In this photo you see the gathering of clergy who were present at the consecration of Iceland’s presiding bishop, Agnes Sigurdardóttir, in 2012 in Reykjavik. Gathered are Lutheran and Anglican bishops, both male and female, as well as the pastors, both male and female, deacons, both male and female, of the Icelandic Lutheran church. The fact that both the Anglican and Lutheran churches ordain women as pastors and now also into the office of bishop has brought these two communions of churches closer – in any case, in many places around the world Anglicans and Lutherans cooperate very closely. It is also the case that the Anglican church too has its conservative and distinctly Protestant wing; for example, the organisation Reform, which very actively defends biblical values, opposes same-sex marriage and the idea that homosexual people could be admitted as pastors, for example; at the same time Reform is in favour of the ordination of women, but not in favour of women being able to take up leading roles in churches.
This also reflects a very important factor: to support the ordination of women does not mean that the church automatically also ordains homosexuals, or changes its doctrinal position on this question at all. Of the churches I mentioned earlier, the Tanzanian church (among the largest Lutheran churches in the world) ordains women, but maintains a very conservative line regarding homosexuality. Likewise Ethiopia, now probably the largest Lutheran church in the world; the Lutheran churches of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc., etc.
Lutherans – the Orthodox churches
When in 2009 the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) elected Bishop Margot Käßmann as its president, the Moscow Patriarchate reacted very sharply, and threatened to break the long-standing ties, also breaking off the dialogue with the EKD. As the press wrote at the time:
«The Moscow Patriarchate may break off relations with the Evangelical Church in Germany, one of the main Protestant churches of Western Europe, because it has elected a woman as chair of the EKG (EKD) council. Orthodox clergy say that this is contrary to evangelical principles. Commentators fear that this could cause a serious interfaith conflict. On 28 October the EKG council elected Bishop Margot Käßmann as its chair. She is the first woman to lead the EKG. The EKG unites 24 million Protestants in more than 20 Lutheran and Reformed churches. The 51-year-old Bishop of Hanover is divorced, with 4 daughters. «We plan to mark 50 years of dialogue with the German Lutheran church at the end of November or the beginning of December», on Wednesday said Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. «The celebration will also mark the conclusion of this dialogue.»
But after Bishop Käßmann was forced to resign, the situation normalised very quickly; Oberkirchenrat Martin Illert, responsible for the EKD’s dialogues with the Orthodox churches, wrote thus in September 2015:
«The EKD takes part in 3 bilateral ecumenical dialogues:
With the Russian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patriarchate (the dialogue resumed after 2009, the last meeting in 2012, the next planned for December 2015)
With the Romanian Orthodox Church (the last talks in 2013, the next in 2016)
And with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (the last meeting having taken place just now in 2015).
Alongside the bilateral dialogues there are annual meetings with the Orthodox Bishops’ Conference in Germany and with the Ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches. (Sept 2015)»
So the fact that the EKD includes many ordained women pastors has not affected these relations; the question was only about a woman bishop. Although the Moscow Patriarchate predicted that the appointment of Käßmann as president could «cause the greatest conflict among Christians in recent years» (MP comment, 2009), this has not quite come to pass.
On the other hand, in the Orthodox world:
«We see that the Lutheran churches ordain women. We do not do this, but for some 100 years we will observe how you fare with it, and then we will talk about this question again. In the meantime we maintain good relations with the Finnish Lutherans, including the Bishop of Helsinki Irja Askola» (Metropolitan Ambrosius of the Finnish Orthodox Church, in a September 2015 address to the synod of the Anglican church)
Lutherans and the Roman Catholic Church
In 2013 the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation jointly issued a document, the result of many years of joint dialogue, with a view to the year 2017 and the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. The document is called From Conflict to Communion. In the introduction Bishops Eero Huovinen (Finnish Lutheran church) and Karlheinz Diez (RCC) say:
“The text that follows describes the way from conflict to communion – a way whose goal we have not yet reached. Nevertheless, the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity has taken seriously the words of Pope John XXIII: «The things that unite us are greater than those that divide us.»”
The document is very significant; it is serious and theologically carefully worked out, does not shy away from problems and contentious questions, and the intent is that it should serve as a basis for the development of relations between the churches of the LWF and the Roman Catholic Church. In its 100 pages the ordination of women is mentioned just one single time.
«Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has recognised that in the theology and orders of ordained ministry there are many overlaps, as well as differences, including the ordination of women, which many Lutheran churches now practise. One of the unresolved questions is whether the Roman Catholic Church can recognise the ministry of the Lutheran churches. » (FCC, 176)
Although, of course, the ordination of women is a topic of discussion in the ecumenical corridors and in the official dialogues, from my experience in England and Europe it is not an obstacle to cooperation between churches.
[1] http://owl.lca.org.au/?page_id=41 – page opened 24 Oct 2015. Original in English: “After many years of study of the two central biblical texts plus related biblical texts and other theological arguments for and against the ordination of women, and after much lively discussion and debate, a majority of the CTICR members supported the view that on balance the Bible did not prohibit the ordination of women. This nuanced decision was saying that the biblical evidence against the ordination of women was not as strong as the biblical case for allowing women to be ordained.”
[2] Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians I. Title 227.206 ISBN 0-85364-622-8.
Witherington, Ben (1995-01-24). Conflict and Community in Corinth: Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Kindle Locations 19-20). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.
[3] Philip J Abbott, Bringing Order to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, https://www.academia.edu/10345962/Bringing_Order_to_1_Cor_14_34-35 (26 Oct 2015).
[4] Karen Bloomquist, unpublished article. Original text: It is possible to accept these texts as authoritative but still read them as being in favour of the ordination of women. The context of I Cor 14 is that worship in the early church probably had become disorderly and was bringing the new faith into disrepute. Paul, who in many other passages accepted the equality and participation of women, here falls back on his patriarchal biases, and calls for silencing the women as a way of solving the problem in that particular situation. Paul called for women to keep quiet for the sake of orderliness and cultural appropriateness, so that the gospel could be heard and not publicly discredited. In most societies today, public speaking by women is neither culturally offensive nor does it lead to disorder. […] Further, in contexts today, prohibiting women from preaching is more likely to discredit the church and the gospel. In other words, the intent of I Cor 14 is likely to be more effectively achieved today by doing the very opposite of what Paul was calling for then!
[5] Witherington, Ben (1995-01-24). Conflict and Community in Corinth: Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Kindle Locations 6582-6586). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition. “The argument is not gender specific. Paul requires respect, submission, and silence of any listener when any prophet is speaking (vv. 28-32), and his dealing with some women who are asking questions (vv. 34f.) is a specific implementation of principles already applied in general to everyone. One must assume that he singles these women out for comment because he had heard that some of them were notable violaters of these principles. 9 Throughout the chapter Paul is correcting abuses, and his words must be read in that context.
[6] LW 40:18; WA 12: 178,9‑10.
[7] WA Tischreden II, 1975 – from Karant-Nunn, Susan C. and Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E, Luther on Women – A Sourcebook, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[8] WA Tischreden V, 5611 – ibid.
[9] Lectures on the Book of Genesis, 1535 – ibid.
[10] Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, LW XL – ibid.
[11] On Councils and the Church, LW XLI – ibid.
[12] Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, LW XL – ibid.