# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S74
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

74 SYNODICAL REPORTS

thy 2, the word for teach (didaskein) is used to refer to the public
proclamation of the Christian faith and to the authoritative trans-
mission of the church’s public teaching (publica doctrina) by those
men who hold this divinely instituted office and who exercise its
responsibilities on behalf of the church. Following New Testament
usage, the terms “teaching” and “preaching” are used interchange-
ably in the Lutheran Confessions (see 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11;
1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11; Ap. IV, 234; VII, 48; Treatise 27, 67). The
Scriptures also use the term “teach” in a wider sense, as in Col.
3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach (di-
daskontes) and admonish one another in all wisdom” (cf. also Heb.
5:12).!

Therefore, if those who are responsible for filling the position of
“teacher of theology” of students who are preparing for full-time
work (ministry) within the LCMS stipulate that the responsibilities
of a given position necessarily involve the proclamation and trans-
mission of the church’s authoritative “public teaching” (publica
doctrina) by one who holds the divinely instituted office of pastor,
then only one who has been properly called (rite vocatus) into the
office of the public ministry may serve in this position as a “teacher
of theology.”

On the other hand, the position of “teacher of theology” of stu-
dents who are preparing for full-time work (ministry) in the LCMS
may also be properly understood as carrying out the broader task of
instruction and explanation of theological matters. Where this is
the assignment, then there are no scriptural and confessional rea-
sons why laypersons or commissioned ministers may not serve as
“teachers of theology” of students preparing for full-time ministry
in the LCMS.

Question: Within the same context as the above question, if a
layperson can function as a teacher of theology, does it make any
difference whether that person is male or female?

Response: Once again, the response to this question depends on
how the term “teacher of theology” is understood. If this term is
used to refer to a position responsible for the proclamation and
transmission of the official and authoritative public teaching (pub-
lica doctrina) of the church by one who holds the office of the pub-
lic ministry, then a woman may not serve in this capacity. St. Paul
says in 1 Tim. 2:12 “I permit no woman to teach (didaskein) . . .”
The Scriptures clearly teach that women are not to hold the pas-
toral office or carry out its distinctive responsibilities.

But if “teacher of theology” is used in the sense of providing “in-
struction” or “explanation” analogous to the instruction that takes
place in, for example, theology departments in secular or church-af-
filiated universities or in congregational Bible classes or Sunday
School classes, then a woman may serve as a “teacher of theology.” In
Acts 18:26 it was commendable that a woman, Priscilla, had an ex-
cellent understanding of the word and “expounded (ektithémi) to him
(Apollos) the way of God more accurately.”

Whether clergy, commissioned ministers or laypersons, all
those who are privileged to teach theology at a Concordia Univer-
sity System school do so within and for The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod. In addition to possessing the requisite academic
credentials, they are and must be committed to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, to the unimpeachably authoritative Scriptures, and to the
normative Lutheran Confessions. Theology instructors submit will-
ingly to professional and theological admonition and discipline
from their peers, from their university president and District presi-
dent, from their boards of regents, and from the duly elected offi-
cials of the church at large.

Adopted February 19, 2003

At its April 2003 meeting the Commission received three minority
opinions to its opinion on Lay Teachers of Theology, signed respec-
tively as follows: (1) Dr. Kurt Marquart; Pastor John Nunes; and Dr.
David Scaer; (2) Pastor Walter Lehenbauer; and, (3) Mr. Paul Nus.

2004 Convention Workbook

These minority opinions are included in Appendix II of the Conven-
tion Workbook and are available online at www.lcms.org/ctcr.

4. Minnesota South District Request for an Opinion on Service of
Women

The 2003 convention of the Minnesota South District adopted a
resolution asking the CTCR to make a recommendation regarding
“women serving as Executive Director or President or Assistant
Director or Vice President of congregations.” It is anticipated that
the Commission will adopt its response to this request at its April
2004 meeting.

5. Michigan District President Request for an Opinion on Malicious
Desertion

In an e-mail] dated December 3, 2003, the Vice President of the
Michigan District, in behalf of the District President, requested an
opinion providing “guidelines regarding what constitutes malicious
desertion, especially as it applies to withholding sexual contact for
an inordinate period of time.” At its December 2003 meeting the
Commission adopted the following response to this request:

Response to Request for an Opinion
on Malicious Desertion from Michigan District President

The request seeks guidelines regarding “what constitutes mali-
cious desertion, especially as it applies to withholding of sexual
contact for an inordinate period of time.” Such guidelines, of
course, can only be provided in the context of the biblical under-
standing of marriage and divorce, including the so-called scriptural
or biblical reasons for divorce. In this context, guidance can be
found in the Commission’s reports, Human Sexuality: A Theologi-
cal Perspective (1981) and Divorce and Remarriage: An Exegeti-
cal Study (1987). The scriptural reasons for divorce are identified
as twofold: (1) “sexual unfaithfulness,” which includes adultery
and fornication; and (2) “desertion” or “abandonment,” if willful
and definitive (or sustained).

Particular reference to the Sth summary statement on pages
38-39 of Divorce and Remarriage is helpful:

5. A spouse who has been willfully and definitively abandoned by
his/her partner who refuses to be reconciled and is unwilling to
fulfill the obligations of the marriage covenant despite persistent
persuasion may seek a legal divorce, which in such a case con-
Stitutes a public recognition of a marriage already broken, and
remarry. (38)

Further, paragraph a. provides the following consideration:

a. In determining whether a person has been truly abandoned in a
way that can be considered willful and definitive, the main factors
are consent to live within the home and to carry out the com-
monly recognized obligations of mutual support and sexual co-
habitation. [See especially | Cor. 7:3-7] In fact, one would also
assume that where such consent and desire exist, the desire also to
reconcile will manifest itself, even if this should involve separa-
tion for a time. (38-39)

The phrase “malicious desertion” may be understood to mean
willful and sustained abandonment. Careful consideration, how-
ever, must be given to the circumstances which identify whether
the “abandonment” is willful or malicious.

This, of course, can only be determined on a case by case basis.
Each set of circumstances needs to be examined closely. Malice or
willfulness includes elements of evil intent, intentional disregard,
calculated and persistent failure—elements which presuppose ill
motives. The difficulty facing those who must judge such situa-
tions is that it may be unfair to find malice or ill will in contexts
where the offending partner is suffering from emotional, mental or
physical dysfunction. Such dysfunctional components make it dif-
ficult to conclude that one is behaving with malice or ill motive to-
ward the other. Rather, such circumstances may well fall within the
categories of the traditional marriage vow to be faithful to the other

99 66s

“for better or for worse,” “in sickness and in health.” In other