# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S463 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS . 463 function[ing] of the pastoral office.” The present CTCR Report now claims that women may serve as chairman, vice-chairman, and as members of synodical dispute resolution panels. However, the actual question of Res. 3-13A, whether such service is allowable when it “would, in effect, involve public accountability” for the pastoral office is nowhere discussed in this Report! And that after several members of the COP (cf. consultation [B, above]) requested clarification on this matter! In fact, this Report does not adequately respond to the question actually put to it by Synod.’ D. Theological Concerns The final concern which is, of course, the most important but which is impossible to argue in detail in this place and at this short notice, is doctrinal and scriptural. Several items may, however, be brought forth: first the treatment of terms such as “teaching,” “‘ex- ercising authority,” etc., and second, the understanding of the doc- trine of the order of creation. To take 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as the focus of our comments in this short Minority Report, the following is- sues/questions can be raised: 1. Regarding the teaching (didaskein) mentioned in verse 12: Is it simply coterminous with the activities of the entire pastoral of- fice? Paul certainly does not use the word that way. In describing his own ministry, Paul says that he was called to be a teacher (di- daskalous) (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). But he never describes him- self as a pastor/overseer (poimeen/episkopos). Indeed, he specifi- cally denies descriptions of his ministry in terms which fit the specific sacramental functions of the pastor of a local congregation (1 Cor. 1:17).8 In addition, he ascribes teaching to others besides pastors (Col. 3:16),° including, it must be noted, women (Titus 2:3).'° Clearly, more work needs to be done here. Simple equation of teaching with the pastoral office seems too facile for this text. 2. Regarding the exercising of authority (authentein) also men- tioned in verse 12: What is the actual meaning of this word? Is it “to exercise authority?” (cf. Report), “to usurp authority” (cf. 1970 CCM ruling)?, or something else? Furthermore, with respect to what is the exercising/usurping done? With respect to spiritual mat- ters? to matters of physical well-being in the congregation?'' More importantly, what is the relationship between exercising/usurping authority and teaching? Is the one equivalent to the other? If not, does one still somehow modify the other? Or, are these two com- pletely different things? On this latter point, we can say that the grammatical construction of the verse'? and the argument in the context from the order of creation (see next point) seem to suggest that teaching is one thing and with the mention of authority Paul moves on to a new topic. The issues surrounding the verb authenteoo (‘to exercise/usurp authority”) are very difficult and simply must be handled, as the Report does not." 3. Regarding the order of creation discussed in verses 13-14: Can the argument in these verses concerning this truth of Scripture and of creation really be limited in this passage to the pastoral of- fice? Several points strongly suggest that it cannot. On the one hand, Paul’s treatment of the order of creation elsewhere does not suggest such a limitation (Eph. 5:25-33 deals with the relationship between husband and wife, and 1 Cor. 11:2-16 concerns evidence expressing the relationship between husband and wife and/or men and women). On the other hand, the context of the entire passage in 1 Tim. 2:8~-15 may not be limited to a worship setting at all, as is often assumed. What Paul says concerning women’s dress and de- portment in verses 9-10 may well not concern worship practices only, especially when one compares these verses to the highly sim- ilar wording in | Pet. 3:3-5. This may well indicate that more gen- eral (even familial) relationship considerations are in view. Indeed, the matter of the order of creation raises questions con- cerning the very nature of manhood and womanhood, as well as the relationship between creation and the new creation of the Age to Come.'* These questions are worthy of fundamental (re)consid- eration. E. Conclusion The minority signing this Report, along with the majority, af- firms that “in their various callings, Christian men and women alike have received from their Lord the high privilege and responsibility of serving each other and their neighbor.” That Christ has blessed and continues richly to bless His church through the faithful ser- vice of women is a fact which we joyfully and thankfully ac- knowledge. We are disturbed, however, with the Report of the ma- jority. Not only did the Commission which produced it transgress agreed upon procedures and its own adopted Mission Statement. More importantly, it acted in great haste and neglected to consider seriously important scriptural and doctrinal issues. It pleases us that the Atlantic District, at its July 1994 convention, asked the Com- mission to consider in a fundamental way the exegetical and theo- logical questions concerning the service of women which we have described. But—and this is the basic point—this work must be done first, before decisions on application to congregational life can be made. This is especially true in the case at hand, when the current Report puts forth positions which are at odds with the offi- cial position adopted by our Synod. Our fundamental concern, however, is that in an important matter such as this we study seri- ously and reverently the Word of God as his faithful people. Signed and presented by: Professor Robert A. Dargatz Concordia University, Irvine Chairman of the Department of Religion Dr. Cameron A. MacKenzie Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne Professor of Historical Theology ; Dr. Norman E. Nagel Concordia Seminary, St. Louis Graduate Professor of Systematic Theology Dr. James W. Voelz Concordia Seminary, St. Louis Professor of Exegetical Theology Dr. William C. Weinrich Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne Dean of Graduate Studies ENDNOTES 1. It should be made clear that no one on Committee 2 objected to the idea of a consultation. Indeed, that such consultation was to be held was part of the original synodical resolution assigning this study to the CTCR (Res. 3-13A, 1989 Convention Proceedings, 118). But members of the committee had doubts whether a consul- tation would accomplish much in view of the very incomplete sta- tus of its own deliberations. In its own consideration of the COP request, the committee adopted a resolution that it “suggest a post- ponement of that consultation until it had itself been able to dis- cuss the document in all its parts (Minutes of Committee 2, CTCR, Sept. 15-17, 1994). However, upon request by the commission staff, the committee subsequently rescinded this motion in favor of allowing the Executive Committee to bring forth the question of the Sept. 26 consultation with the COP (ibid.). 2. One member of Committee 2 did not receive the updated draft until the morning of the first day of the meeting. 3. September meeting, 1994. The statement of purpose does continue “...and provides resources and guidance to the Synod in matters of theology and church relations.” This second function is 2004 Convention Workbook