SERMON TEXT on 1 CORINTHIANS 14.33b-37 & 1 TIMOTHY 2.11-14 [Free Text] September 2005

" AS IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS OF THE SAINTS, WOMEN SHOULD REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCHES. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK, BUT MUST BE IN SUBMISSION, AS THE LAW SAYS. IF THEY WANT TO INQUIRE ABOUT SOMETHING, THEY SHOULD ASK THEIR OWN HUSBANDS AT HOME; FOR IT IS DISGRACEFUL FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH. DID THE WORD OF GOD ORIGINATE WITH YOU? OR ARE YOU THE ONLY PEOPLE IT HAS REACHED? IF ANYBODY THINKS HE IS A PROPHET OR SPIRITUALLY GIFTED, LET HIM ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT I AM WRITING TO YOU IS THE LORD’S COMMAND." [1 Corinthians 14.33b-34/37b NIV]

" A WOMAN SHOULD LEARN IN QUIETNESS AND FULL SUBMISSION. I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN; SHE MUST BE SILENT. FOR ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST, THEN EVE. AND ADAM WAS NOT THE ONE DECEIVED; IT WAS THE WOMAN WHO WAS DECEIVED AND BECAME A SINNER." [1 Timothy 2.11-14 NIV]

This sermon addresses the two texts that have always, that is until the 20^th Century, determined the Church's position on whether women may be ordained. I referred to them in my first sermon - since I consider them dependent upon God's order and appropriate submission to authority. So, with what has already been outlined, I shall concentrate on other issues, specifically who may teach and why, whether what Paul says is applicable to all churches for all time, the demand for silence, and how we understand " THE LORD'S COMMAND." [v 37]

These instructions, which both sides of the WO divide agree relate to teaching and authority in the Church [LTJ Pg. 43 para 1], are located in the context of longer discussions about orderly worship [LTJ Pg. 27 and 28], and were written by Paul to two different Gentile congregations - one in Corinth, the other in Ephesus. The size and constitution of each congregation is unknown, but scripture indicates they were a mix of Jews and Gentiles [Acts 18.1-4/7-8; 19.1-7/17/20]. Started by Paul in the teeth of fierce opposition [Acts 18.12; 19.23f] they were set in cosmopolitan cultures and surrounded by pagan religions [e.g. the Gnostic groups and the fertility Cult of Artemis or Diana in Ephesus]. And it's noteworthy that by direct comparison to Jewish society the women in these Gentile cultures not only enjoyed a different, elevated status, but were very prominent in religious life. They often served as pagan priests [LTJ Pg. 58]. So, instead of restricting the role of women in Christian worship, Paul could have endorsed women as pastors. Such a move would have been in keeping with the immediate culture, if not the expectations of the Jewish converts. But rather Paul goes against the culture of each community, saying, " AS IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS OF THE SAINTS, WOMEN SHOULD REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCHES…I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN; SHE MUST BE SILENT." [1 Corinthians 14.33 & 1 Timothy 2.12]

Paul's instructions have generated much theological reflection over the last 100 years. Certainly both sides of the debate in the LCA recognise their significance and their relationship. Those against WO align themselves with the historic position of the Church and state that " THE CASE FOR THE ORDINATION OF MEN ONLY IS BASED ON THE COMMAND OF CHRIST GIVEN IN THE TWO PRIMARY TEXTS: 1 CORINTHIANS 14.33-38 AND 1 TIMOTHY 2.11-14." [LTJ Pg. 26] Further, on the basis of the hermeneutical rule that scripture interprets scripture, they understand the second text [1 Timothy 2] " CONFIRMS THE UNIVERSAL AND BINDING CHARACTER OF THE COMMAND." [LTJ Pg. 28]

Those for WO try to reinterpret these texts [LTJ Pg. 43]. And this necessity leads to a remarkably candid admission in the fifth paper. " IN COMBINATION WITH PAUL’S WORDS AT 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35, THE TWO VERSES FROM 1 TIMOTHY IN WHICH PAUL CALLS WOMEN TO SILENCE AND SUBMISSION [11-12] HAVE PROVED AN ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER TO WOMEN’S ORDINATION THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH." [LTJ Pg. 77] It leads to the claim that " PAUL’S WORDS CANNOT BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD OR ACCURATELY APPLIED IN TODAY’S CHURCH WITHOUT CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE ISSUES THAT CONFRONTED THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN EPHESUS." [LTJ Pg. 77] It leads to some extraordinary speculation about " POORLY INSTRUCTED WOMEN…INTERRUPTING THE WORSHIP LEADERS WITH A STREAM OF QUESTIONS [in Corinth]…A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO HAD FALLEN PREY TO FALSE TEACHERS [in Ephesus] " [LTJ Pg. 66/74-76/78/80] and a preposterous claim that Eve was " LESS WELL INFORMED " than Adam about God's prohibition " YOU SHALL NOT EAT " in Genesis 2.17 [LTJ Pg 80]. If true, this means that God [not just Adam] failed her and then punished her for his incompetence. But thankfully Genesis 3.3 tells us otherwise! It leads to the claim that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, offers the Ephesians and us an " IDIOSYNCRATIC TREATMENT OF THE GENESIS TEXTS." [LTJ Pg. 80] It leads to an inappropriate use of the Lutheran Confessions as a hermeneutical tool against scripture [LTJ Pg. 43-47]! It leads to a general appeal to take the mission of the Church and the culture in which it operates more into account, saying " IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE CHURCH…TAKE CARE TO DISPLAY CULTURAL AWARENESS, FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY, FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL." [LTJ Pg. 48]

Rather than consider these approaches I shall turn to what Paul actually wrote. Paul's concern is obviously about who is responsible for public preaching and teaching in the Church - who is to speak with authority in a congregational setting, which incidentally is the principle role of a pastor [Lutheran Confessions Tappert 31.1; 82.8; 169.5; 221.42; 284.18; 506.14]. His words must assume the precedents of Jesus public teaching ministry [Matthew 4.23; 7.28-29; 9.35; 21.23; Mark 6.6; 14.49; Luke 4.31; 5.3; 13.22; 23.5; Acts 1.1], the public teaching role of the other disciples [Mark 6.30; Acts 4.1-2; 5.19-21; 5.42] and his own public teaching role as " A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES IN FAITH AND TRUTH." [1 Timothy 2.7 NRSV, see also Acts 11.26; 15.35; 18.11; 21.28; 28.30-31; 1 Corinthians 4.17; Colossians 1.28; 2.7; 2 Thessalonians 2.15; 2 Timothy 1.11]. And with all this insight and perspective at his disposal Paul wrote: "…WOMEN SHOULD REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCHES. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK " and " I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH." [1 Corinthians 14.34; 1 Timothy 2.12]

Here Paul employs two different Greek words, translated 'speak' and 'teach'. In the Gospel narratives the word 'speak' regularly [though admittedly not exclusively] indicates speaking or teaching with authority. The OT prophets spoke with authority for God [Luke 1.70; Luke 12.41]. The angel Gabriel spoke to Zechariah with authority [Luke 1.19]. An angel spoke with authority to the shepherds about the birth of Jesus [Luke 2.20]. John the Baptist spoke with authority and inspired two disciples to follow Jesus [John 1.37]. Vitally, when Jesus 'speaks' [70 x in the Gospels], it is always in the context of authoritative teaching [Matthew 9.18; 12.46; 13.3/10/13/33-34; 14.27; 23.1; 28.18; Mark 2.2/7; 4.33-34; 5.35; 6.50; 8.32; 14.43; Luke 2.50; 5.4/21; 8.49; 9.11; 11.37; 12.3; 22.47; 24.6/25/32/44; John 3.11; 3.34; 4.26-27; 6.63; 7.17/26/28/46; 8.12/20/26/28/30/38/40; 9.37; 10.6; 12.36/48-50; 14.10/25/30; 15.3/11/22; 16.1/4/6/18/25/29/33; 17.1/13; 18.20-21/23]. Jesus also promised his disciples that they would 'speak' for God, with authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 10.18-20; Mark 13.11].

In 1Timothy 2.12 Paul does not use the verb 'to teach' in a general sense [that is, for any kind of instruction] but as a technical term for the transmission of apostolic teaching [1 Timothy 1:10-11; 5.17; 2 Timothy 3:10/16; 4.2-3]. Timothy was charged to teach what he had received from Paul [1 Timothy 4:11/13/16; 6:2] and to pass it on to other men - for other pastors, in turn, to teach [1 Timothy 3.2; 2 Timothy 2:2; 2.24; Titus 1.9]. Likewise, Titus was told, " YOU MUST TEACH WHAT IS IN ACCORD WITH SOUND DOCTRINE." [Titus 2.1/7] A woman could teach other women [Titus 2:3–5], she was to instruct her children [2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15] and, like Priscilla, she could take an active role — possibly even a leading role — in the private instruction of a future pastor, Apollos [Acts 18:25-26]. Women were not, however, permitted to serve as public preachers and teachers - speaking for and on behalf of a congregation.

I feel I need to stress again that neither paper offered by the CTICR in support of WO openly disputes that Paul is referring to public teaching in these texts. Still a point of clarification is needed. Some ask how Paul could forbid women to teach publicly yet allow a woman to prophesy in the Church [1 Corinthians 11.5; 1 Corinthians 14. 3-5]. But there is no inconsistency here. According to biblical usage, to prophesy is to speak God’s word on the basis of a special revelation [LTJ Pg. 62 Para 3, but see Pgs. 73-74] under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit [1 Corinthians 14:30; Revelation 1:1–3; 22:18-19]. Yes, in the NT women prophesy! I am particularly reminded of Anna, who spoke about the infant Jesus in the Temple " TO ALL WHO WERE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE REDEMPTION OF JERUSALEM." [Luke 2.36-38] This said Anna was not a priest or a pastor! Anna was not preaching or teaching! She privately shared [admittedly in a public context] an insight about Jesus that could only have had divine origins. And so her words of prophecy, which clearly carried divine authority, constitute a different kind of speaking.

Interestingly, none of the CTICR papers says very much about Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14, " AS IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS OF THE SAINTS, WOMEN SHOULD REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCHES." [v 33b-34a] So does this observation, possibly written around 55 AD, merely refer to all of the congregations that Paul had established or to those located exclusively in Greece or to those where he deemed it necessary to hold the women back until they had been properly instructed?

Such speculation cannot be justified. The Greek that Paul uses is very clear and utterly consistent with word usage found elsewhere in the New Testament. When Paul says, " IN ALL [pasais] THE CHURCHES [ekklesiais] OF THE HOLY ONES/SAINTS [hagion]," he expounds an ecumenical rule - a common practice for all Christian communities in all cultural settings [LTJ Pg. 59]. And it is significant that he asserts such ecumenical practice elsewhere in his First Letter to the Corinthians [1 Corinthians 4.17; 7.17; 11.16]. Paul refers to all of the congregations that existed at that time throughout the world and, on the basis of the Day of Pentecost alone, we might assume these congregations existed in Israel, Asia Minor, Crete, Babylon, Greece, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya and Rome [Acts 2.9-11]. Only those arguing against the ordination of women offer any comments on Paul's ecumenical rule [LTJ Pgs. 27 & 59]. This may reflect the inability of those who favour WO to explain it away.

Paul continues, in all of the congregations [ekklesiais] let the women [gunaikes] be silent [sigatosan Pres 3pp imp]. As the second LTJ paper puts it, " IT IS THE SILENCE THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO ALL WHO LISTEN TO GOD'S WORD AS IT IS EXPOUNDED IN THE DIVINE SERVICE BY THOSE WHO ARE CALLED TO PREACH OR TEACH IT." [LTJ Pg. 27] Certainly if the mood of the Greek grammar is to be taken seriously Paul was insisting this silence be a continual and repeated activity. [Note the Greek Present Imperative denotes a. demands for continual activity, b. demands for repeated activity, c. demands that are emphatic - frenzied or desperate or insistent and d. demands that signal action to commence Fundamental Greek Grammar J. Voelz Pg. 215-216 & A Grammar of the Greek NT A. Robertson Pg. 890] The silence Paul expected was one of quietness or stillness. The same word indicates the reaction of the disciples after Jesus transfiguration [Luke 9.36], of Jesus opponents after their failure to trap Jesus by hostile questioning [Luke 20.26] and of the moment when the Council in Jerusalem listened to Barnabas and Paul [Acts 15.12].

But this instruction to women is not taken to mean absolute silence [LTJ Pg. 26/43]. Women prayed and prophesied [1 Corinthians 11.5]. Women, we presume, joined men in offering to God and to each other " PSALMS, HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS." [Ephesians 5.19] Again, employing the hermeneutical rule that 'scripture interprets scripture' Paul's words in First Timothy 2 define the silence Paul required. A woman is not permitted to preach or teach publicly. " A WOMAN SHOULD LEARN IN QUIETNESS…I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN," says Paul, " SHE MUST BE SILENT." [1 Timothy 2.12] This said the Church - the LCA, has not always been consistent. It is right to point out that " CHRISTIANS…DIFFER IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WIDELY PAUL'S WORDS…APPLY." [LTJ Pg. 63] Indeed, as those in favour of WO note, because of these texts " PARTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH WENT SO FAR AS TO RULE OUT WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN CONGREGATIONAL HYMN SINGING " and the LCA has also " MODIFIED ITS POSITION IN VARIOUS WAYS AS TIME HAS PASSED [by allowing women to vote, to read lessons and to serve as elders and lay readers]." [LTJ Pg. 71]

Set over and against Paul's demand for silence those who favour the ordination of women offer four alternative interpretations " THAT ARE SOMETIMES ADVANCED TO MODERATE THE IMPACT OF PAUL'S STERN COMMAND." [LTJ Pgs. 72-73] These are, first, that only wives are told to be quiet in church, not women in general [LTJ Pg. 72]. Second, that Paul's words are an insertion into the text of 1 Corinthians by someone other than Paul [LTJ Pg. 72]. Third, that Paul's words are not his own opinion, but his quotation of the words of a strict opposition party in Corinth which he later refutes [LTJ Pg. 72]. Fourth, that Paul is referring to the noisy chattering of women who were separated from the main worship auditorium [LTJ Pg. 73]. In fairness none of these alternative interpretations is adopted or strongly advocated. However, there is no acknowledgment [by those who favour WO] of the obvious and simple connection between what Paul told the Corinthians and what he told the Ephesians.

Last, but certainly not least, we come to the words that are considered crucial by those who oppose the ordination of women, namely, "…WHAT I AM WRITING TO YOU IS THE LORD’S COMMAND." [1 Corinthians 14.37] Not surprisingly both sides of the debate devote much analysis and ink to this short phrase in the CTICR papers. And not surprisingly they arrive at quite different conclusions about what it means, especially as to whether the command is a local, temporary one conditioned by human culture or whether it is permanent and binding on the Church until Jesus returns on Judgment Day.

Those opposing WO see a correspondence and connection [LTJ Pgs. 51-52/60 Para 2/61] between Jesus words to his disciples in Matthew 28, " GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS…TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU " [Matthew 28.19-20] and Paul's words to the Corinthians, "…WHAT I AM WRITING TO YOU IS THE LORD’S COMMAND." [1 Corinthians 14.37] They note how Paul uses the word 'command' 14 times in his various letters [Romans 7.8-13; 13.9; 1 Corinthians 7.19; 14.37; Ephesians 2.15; 6.2; Colossians 4.10; 1 Timothy 6.14; Titus 1.14] and that when he does he never uses it lightly [LTJ Pg. 51]. Moreover, they claim he carefully maintains distinctions commending " HIS PASTORAL OPINIONS TO THE CORINTHIANS FOR THEIR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION " and placing " THE LORD'S COMMANDS ON A MUCH HIGHER PLANE AS WORDS THAT HAVE AN ONGOING VALIDITY IN THE CHURCH." [1 Corinthians 7.6/10/12/25 LTJ Pg. 52] Whilst conceding some divine commands are temporary, designed for a particular time or circumstance [Matthew 17.9; Mark 10.2-9; John 10.28; 12.49; Acts 15.28; Hebrews 7.4-19 LTJ Pg. 60], they outright reject the idea that these two texts have " A RELATIVE, LIMITED APPLICATION " [LTJ Pg. 33] and the argument that the verb 'to permit', used in both passages [v 34 & v 12], refers only to the specific context of the prohibition [LTJ Pg 33]. Their basic understanding about the Lord's command is summed up in these words from the 4^th CTICR paper:

" LIKE THE MANDATES IN MATTHEW 28:18–20 AND JOHN 13:34, THE TWO COMMANDS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 14:37 AND THEIR PARALLEL IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 CARRY NO EXPIRY DATE. BOTH THE BROADER CONTEXT AND THE IMMEDIATE FRAMEWORK SHOW THAT ST. PAUL REGARDS THEM AS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT MATTERS THAT SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE." [LTJ Pg. 52]

" WHEREVER A DIVINE COMMAND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS ONLY TEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE THERE ARE CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS TO THAT EFFECT, SUCH AS ‘DON’T TELL ANYONE...UNTIL...’ [MATTHEW 17:9]. WITHOUT CLEAR INDICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT, DIVINE COMMANDMENTS ISSUED OR REISSUED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE PERMANENTLY BINDING. FOR EXAMPLE, JESUS CONFIRMS THE ONGOING VALIDITY OF THE LAW [MATTHEW 5:17–19]." [LTJ Pgs. 60-61]

Those arguing for WO suggest, citing context, that the command of the Lord more likely refers " TO THE REGULATION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE PROPHETS AND TONGUE-SPEAKERS " outlined in 1 Corinthians 14.26-33 and not [strangely] to the words that immediately precede it! As for the command in 1 Timothy 2.11-12, they state that " THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE INTENDED 'FOR THE TIME BEING' AND 'TO AVOID OFFENCE." [LTJ Pg. 77]

The fifth paper [supporting WO] explains, quite correctly, that the Church has different ways of handling words of command in scripture. Certain commands are treated as though they remain in force until Jesus returns e.g. the command to baptize [Matthew 28.18-20], to celebrate the Lord's Supper [Matthew 26.29] and to preach the Gospel [Romans 10.14-17]. Some commands fall into the category of exaggerations e.g. the gouging out of an offending eye [Matthew 5.29-30]. Still other commands, e.g. Sabbath observance [Exodus 20.8-11], the requirement that women wear head coverings [1 Corinthians 11.2-16] and the ban on eating meat sacrificed to idols [Acts 15.28] are ignored even though [and this is the point of those who favour WO] " THERE IS NO BIBLICAL MANDATE COUNTERMANDING THE ORIGINAL COMMAND." [LTJ Pg. 79]

Those who favour WO basically call for consistency. If, they argue, it is acceptable to ignore some commands on the grounds that they have seemingly been fulfilled [Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath and is our Sabbath rest Matthew 12.8; Colossians 2.16-17; Hebrews 4.9-10] or they were framed to avoid religious and cultural offence then the ban on ordaining women can, quite appropriately, be ignored [LTJ Pg. 79 Para 5]. In this connection three criteria are advanced for establishing when a given command has an enduring character [LTJ Pg. 79]. First, the command is said to be in force till the return of Christ. Second, the command contains no verbal clues that the command is limited to the time and place of writing. Third, the command serves to underpin and enhance the proclamation of the gospel and the creating and sustaining of faith; it does not prove counterproductive to the gospel taking root in hearts and lives. [LTJ Pg. 79]

However, these criteria are not all they may seem. Consider Jesus instructions to his disciples in Matthew 28 about baptism. Jesus could be regarded as just speaking to the eleven disciples - he could be telling them to baptize and teach during their life times. Besides this the command to baptize is not declared to be 'permanent and binding' until the return of Christ, and there are plenty who dispute the notion that baptism [with a sacramental understanding] underpins and enhances the proclamation of the Gospel [e.g. The Salvation Army, the various charismatic/Pentecostal bodies]. And, of course, much the same line of reasoning could be advanced about the institution of the Lord's Supper. So the question arises, if we are willing to dispense with a word of Apostolic command about teaching that is not clearly [beyond a reasonable doubt] limited to the time and place of writing [see LTJ Pg. 81 Para 2], then are we also prepared to dispense with the Sacraments?

The debate about WO and the complicated arguments set out in the six CTICR papers show two things very clearly. Firstly, there is no longer any even broad agreement on how the LCA arrives at a correct interpretation of the scriptures [on what rules we should use to go about this vital task]. The Lutheran Church that emerged from the Reformation was initially sure about and united in its hermeneutical approach. In today's theological environment many prefer to follow and depend upon the scientifically based critical means of analyzing the scriptures - means that have as their foundations evolutionary assumptions, skepticism [especially about the miraculous elements] and a magisterial [ruling] rather than a servant use of human reason. Unless the LCA can reach broad agreement about how to interpret God's Word the question of whether women should be ordained will not be satisfactorily resolved at the 2006 General Synod.

Second, the authority of God's Word is under direct attack! As a church we are no longer speaking the same language to each other on this subject. As a Church we understand the word 'authority' and its implications for our teaching and very existence as part of the 'Body of Christ' in any number of ways. Like Adam and Eve long ago we have a problem with the only authority that really counts. Simply put, we are no longer affirming that God's Word is God's Word - that it is objective truth - that it has an inherent authority independent of human reason, independent of subjective experiences and independent of cultural imperatives. We doubt the unique divine inspiration of individuals like Moses, Matthew, Luke and Paul. We doubt that they received God's will via the Holy Spirit and reported it accurately for posterity - entirely free of personal glosses or cultural bias.

However, unless they did exactly that we can never really be sure of anything that is written in the scriptures. Everything is up for grabs! Everything can be questioned and reinterpreted! And I mean everything, including the bare words of Jesus, the work of Jesus and the implications of his sacrificial life, and the authority of Jesus as God's Son, the second person of the Trinity. In such circumstances this means the authority of God that backs up the Gospel promises - the promises we rely upon for eternal salvation, is no more, no less than a mirage! It is madness to cherish the authority of the Gospel promises but challenge the very same authority that stands behind a divine law or prohibition or structure we don't like and will not accept because it doesn't fit the prevailing culture!

Finally, consider this. The authority of God's Word is not just crucial for us. It is equally crucial for our world! The world needs the assertiveness, the objectivity and the corrective of God's Word. But we are no good to God or to those living without faith if we send out mixed messages about his authority or worse still repudiate it. The world in which we live cannot get what God's Word offers from anywhere else. And if the Church continually alters God's will on an issue to keep in step with or reflect the norms of secular culture - if the Church consciously changes [dumbs down] its language to accommodate the world lest it cause offence, what use is the Church to anyone? The debate about whether we ordain women is but one manifestation of our ongoing malaise. A malaise that has convinced me the LCA must resolve the WO debate, either by decisively rejecting it once and for all or sadly by schism! Whatever the consequences may be for the LCA our task, as individuals and collectively, must be to reclaim and uphold the truth and the authority of God's Word. AMEN.