# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S416
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

416 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

spinning in their own autonomous galaxy known as the “academy.”

They were created by the church in order to serve the church and

her proclamation of the Gospel. The institutions of the church, in-

cluding the academy, can be anchored no more firmly in the
church’s teaching and practice than the individual people who com-
prise those institutions.

2. A key text of Scripture has relevance for this discussion:
“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man” (1 Tim. 2:12 NKJV).

This authoritative Word of God is perfectly clear, unambigu-
ous, and without metaphor. The LCMS ought to affirm and em-
brace it openly, confidently, and boldly. We must not violate, cir-
cumvent, marginalize, dilute, or move away from the forthright
implications and applications of this text.

Elsewhere the CTCR has said: “Again, on the basis of Scrip-
tural arguments, the apostle holds in this text that women are not to
take the position of one to whom is assigned responsibility for the
formal, public proclamation of the Christian faith.”!

3. Theology can be understood as “the proclamation and trans-
mission of the official and authoritative public teaching (publica
doctrina) of the church.”

“Christ is the subject matter of theology,” said Luther. Theology
is not about archeology, studies of religion as sociological phe-
nomena, or creative speculation, but it is the authoritative, ortho-
dox interpretation of the Word of God.

Francis Pieper explains that “theology” has four specific mean-
ings drawn from Scripture:

*¢ The special measure of the knowledge of God and the divine doc-
trine which public ministers in the congregation should possess
.. (I Tim. 3:5, 2).

* The knowledge of God and the divine doctrine which is required
of those who train the future public teachers. These “theological
professors” are called theologians in a special sense. Timothy per-
formed the work of a theological professor when he committed
the things he had learned from the apostle Paul “to faithful men,
who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

* The knowledge of God and the divine doctrine possessed by all
Christians.

* The knowledge and doctrine of certain parts of the Christian reli-
gion, namely, of the deity of Christ and, respectively, of the Trin-
ity. ... We may use the terms theology and theologia in this four-
fold sense, since the matter itself is found in Scripture. But it is an
unscriptural use of language when men define theology as a
knowledge of God and divine things which, it is claimed, reaches
farther than faith in the Word of Scripture and expands faith into
scientific comprehension. This is the rp@tov wevdoc¢ of modern
theology in all of its various forms. And we have to keep on in-
sisting that when men imagine that their theological knowledge
rises above faith in the written Word, they are deluding them-
selves; their alleged knowledge is ignorance.” (emphasis added)

If a professor’s teaching and preaching lacks theological con-
tent, he ought not be considered a professor of “theology.” If that
theological content does not proclaim the Gospel, then it ought not
be considered Lutheran. These statements also apply to curriculum
or course content, to determine whether they deserve the appella-
tion of “theology.”

If a professor’s preaching and teaching is not anchored in and
drawn from the Word of God, he can easily meander into “philos-
ophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, ac-
cording to the elementary principles of the world, rather than ac-
cording to Christ” (Col. 2:8 NASB). Philosophy and human
speculations about God are not “theology.”

I disagree with the CTCR’s Response at three crucial points:

1. The Commission interprets 1 Tim. 2:12 to mean only that
“women are not to hold the pastoral office or carry out its distinc-
tive responsibilities.”

2004 Convention Workbook

That is an overly narrow reading of this passage. In fact, it falls
prey to exactly the error Paul was combating—a Gnostic tendency
toward dualism—in his first letter to Timothy.

Martin Franzmann’ explains the epistle’s context:

Gnosticism is not so much a system’‘as a trend or current of thought
which produced a great variety of systems, often by combining with
some already existing religion. It was therefore present and active as a
corrupting force long before the great Christian-gnostic systems of the
second century appeared. ...

Basic to all forms of Gnosticism is a dualistic conception of reality,
that is, the view that what is spiritual, nonmaterial, is of itself good and
what is material or physical, is of itself bad. This view affects man’s
whole attitude toward created things. ...

The Law becomes the arena of speculation and vain discussions, not
the voice of God which calls the sinner to account and condemns him.
... Where knowledge is made central in the religious life of man and
self-redemption by way of ascetic exercise is made in the way of salva-
tion, there is no possibility of that pure Christian love which “issues
from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim.
1:5). A narrow and sectarian pride takes its place (1 Tim. 6:4, 20; cf
1:3-7). Where the teaching office becomes a wordy, speculative, dis-
putatious purveying to a select coterie of initiates, it is bound to become
corrupted; it appeals to the pride, the selfishness, and the mercenary in-
stincts of men, and the teacher becomes that ghastly, demon-ridden car-
icature of the true teacher which Paul has described in 1 Tim. 4:1-2.°
The connection between life and knowledge (‘gnosis’) is es-

sential (see Appendix A). To fence off the worship life of the
church from the teaching of the church is to create a false “wall of
separation.” Furthermore, the Scriptures clearly teach that certain
attributes of the teacher must be considered relevant and connected
to the content of the teaching.

Luther explains ] Tim. 2:12 as follows:

Where there are men, she should neither teach nor rule. She rules
in the home and says: “Be quiet,” but she is not the master. ... They
should be with all submissiveness. Then comes the teaching, and Paul
does not entrust the ministry of the Word to her. He considers this the
greatest thing that goes on in the church. You must always understand
this with the condition that men are present. Paul says this that there
may be peace and harmony in the churches when the Word is taught
and people pray. There would be a disturbance if some woman wished
to argue against the doctrine that is being taught by a man. The method
of 1 Cor. 14 has now perished. I could wish it were still in effect, but it
causes great stnife. Where a man teaches, there is a well-rounded argu-
ment against a man. If she wishes to be wise, let her argue with her hus-
band at home.”

Teaching theology in a synodical institution of higher educa-
tion, like teaching Sunday school or Bible class in a congregation,
must be recognized as exercising a function of “the ministry of the
Word.” | Tim. 2:12 relates those functions to the gender of the
teacher and the students.

2. The Commission looks to the example of Priscilla explain-
ing to Apollos to say:

In Acts 18:26 it was commendable that a woman, Priscilla, had an
excellent understanding of the word and “expounded (ektithemi) to him
[Apollos] the way of God more accurately.”

Clear definitions of key words are crucial to properly under-
stand this text:

a. mpoceAGBovto, proslambano; from npos (pros) and Aap Raver
(lambano); to take to oneself, i.e., use (food), lead (aside), admit
(to friendship or hospitality), receive, take (unto). Here the verb
means ‘“‘to take to the side.”

b. extiOnpt, ektithemi, “to place out”: The verb literally means
“to set or place out,” and signifies to bring out the latent and secret
ideas of a literary passage or a system of thought and life.

c. 8t8d0K, didasko, “to teach”: The usual word for “teach” in
the New Testament signifies either to hold a discourse with others
in order to instruct them, or to deliver a didactic discourse where
there may not be direct personal and verbal participation. In the
former sense it describes the interlocutory method, the interplay of
the ideas and words between pupils and teachers, and in the latter