# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S400
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

400

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
6

5
	
  

	
  
actually created the man first, and then the woman from the rib of the man, and
that this chronological sequence has significance for the ontological authority of
men over women, is as outdated as the traditional interpretations of those biblical
texts that speak of the earth being founded on pillars, of the earth not moving, of
the sun going around the earth, of the sun rising and setting, of the earth as the
center of God’s creation, and so on. Just as the data from Galileo’s investigations
confirmed the Copernican theory and brought about the end of literalistic
interpretations of these cosmological passages, so the data from natural history
and anthropology have spelled the end of this kind of literalistic “order of
creation” construct. (CFPT, 3-4)
If a woman has been given the creaturely gifts of intellect, an aptitude for
teaching, and the Spirit's gifts for ministry, her gifts ought to be used in service to
the church. Why should that final, 23rd chromosomal pair be more important to
the “ordering” of a woman to a man in the church than the gospel itself? (CFPT,
4)
While no Christian theologian will teach that modern evolutionary theories offer a
sufficient explanation for the origin of the world or a complete and exclusive
account for the nature of human beings as creatures of God, Christian theology
has the responsibility to let “nature speak on its own terms.” Theology cannot
interfere with scientific investigation by simply appealing to “what the Bible says.”
(SLM, 9)
Scripture itself indicates that we can trust the facts of nature and need not try to
re-interpret their “speech” to us, even if such “speech” apparently conflicts with
our particular readings of Scripture. If there is such an apparent conflict, then we
need to re-examine our interpretation of Scripture and our understanding of
nature…. Since God’s “book of nature” is reliable and not deceptive, and since
human reason is a creaturely gift of God the Creator, human reason is a
generally reliable means for “reading” that God-given “book.” (SLM, 11)

clearly incompatible with the Synod’s doctrinal position on the authority and interpretation of
Scripture.* For this reason, the Commission affirms once again its determination that Dr. Becker
has not provided sufficient basis for his claim that the position of the Synod is in need of
revision, and expresses once again its conviction that Dr. Becker is in dissent from the position
of the Synod not only on the specific issues of the ordination of women to the pastoral office and
the issues of creation and evolution, but also on the more foundational position of the Synod on
which these positions are based: namely, the authority, infallibility, and faithful interpretation of
the Holy Scriptures themselves.
The CTCR therefore appeals to Dr. Matthew Becker, by the mercies of God, to reconsider his
dissent and to reexamine, on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, his positions
on the authority of Scripture and the two issues concerning which he has expressed dissent,
even as the Synod expects him to honor and uphold the doctrinal positions of the Synod.
Conclusion: “Life Together”
The Synod’s process for expressing dissent begins with this reminder: “While retaining the right
of brotherly dissent, members of the Synod are expected as part of the life together within the
fellowship of the Synod to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.8).
Numerous resolutions of the Synod have been adopted over the years that help to explain this
expectation and how it relates to the sola Scriptura principle, unconditional subscription to the
Lutheran Confessions, and questions of Christian conscience. Attached to this response is one
particularly significant and time-honored resolution that merits careful review and reflection by
all members of the Synod, 1971 Res. 2-21 “To Uphold Synodical Doctrinal Resolutions.” It
seems fitting to close this response by quoting the final two paragraphs of the preamble of this
resolution:
The object of the Synod, as stated in Article III, 1, of the Constitution, is (1) to
conserve and promote a unity in which all are “united in the same mind and the
same judgment” (1 Cor.1:10), and (2) to avoid schism caused by contrary
doctrine (Rom.16:17). This purpose of the Synod is defeated when individuals
are permitted to teach in accordance with their private views, for then there can
be no such thing as a synodical position, and a meaningful corporate
confessional commitment is impossible. Formal commitment of the Synod to a
confessional base is pointless unless the Synod has the right as a synod to apply
its confessional base definitively to current issues and thus conserve and
promote unity and resist an individualism which breeds schism.

Of course a “figurative” interpretation of Genesis 1-9 (not to mention the many
other passages in Scripture that speak of God as creator, of the world as God’s
creation, and of the new creation) does entail a revision of the traditional
“creationist” manner of articulating the doctrines of creation, anthropology, and
sin, and many Christians are deeply uncomfortable with such a prospect. This
“discomfort” is at least as great as the discomfort many 16th-Century Christians
must have felt in view of the revision to traditional teaching that the Copernican
Theory entailed. As then, however, so also now: such modification would not
necessarily undermine an orthodox understanding of creation, human beings,
sin, and grace. For example, scientific data about the reality of physical death in
the animal and plant kingdoms prior to origin of human beings (e.g., fossils of
animals that lived long before the origin of human beings) must lead those who
interpret the Bible in light of scientific knowledge to restate the nature of God’s
good creation prior to the advent of human sin (e.g., such a good creation must
have included the reality of death prior to the existence of human beings) and the
character of the historical origin of sin (e.g., the advent of sin is to be traced to
the first hominids who disobeyed God’s will but not necessarily to their having
eaten from a tree in an actual place called the Garden of Eden several thousand
years ago). (SLM, 12)

The Synod holds that a member cannot justly charge the Synod with “binding his
conscience” when the Synod, in applying its confessional base to current issues,
adopts doctrinal statements which it believes to be in harmony with the Word of
God and requires that such resolutions be considered normative for every
member. A doctrine of Scripture remains a doctrine of Scripture despite the fact
that it is formulated in synodically adopted resolutions. If a member cannot for
conscience’ sake accept a doctrinal resolution of the Synod, he has the
obligation and opportunity through mutually approved procedure to challenge
such a resolution with a view to effecting the changes he deems necessary.
Failing in that, he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association
with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself from the Synod.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Statements such as these by Dr. Becker speak for themselves in conveying his understanding
of the authority and interpretation of the Scriptures. As noted above, this understanding is

7
	
  
Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to abide by, act, and teach in
accordance with the Synod’s resolutions.
Adopted by the CTCR
November 11, 2011

2013 Convention Workbook

*

See A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles for a discussion of critically related issues
such as the proper (ministerial) and improper (magesterial) use of reason in approaching and interpreting
Scripture, the relationship between the Gospel and Scripture (material and formal principles), the role of
historical and scientific methods in Biblical interpretation, etc.