LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 321

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

321

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

APPENDIX: 1995 Resolution 3-10
To Prepare a Comprehensive Study
of the Scriptural Relationship
of Man and Woman
Overtures 3-70–71 (CW, p. 174)
WHEREAS, It is apparent that confusion exists in the Synod,
as well as in our culture regarding the relationship of male and female. This is evident from the overtures received by the convention. These overtures deal with a diversity of subjects: ordination
of women, woman suffrage in our congregations, use of female assistants in the public worship. Additional overtures ask for a definition of the orders of creation as they relate to the priesthood of
believers in the service of women in the church.
The committee therefore recommends a comprehensive study
and offers the following resolution. Among the questions which
might be included in such a study are:
1. Creation, Gen. 1:26–30: Does the image of God here apply to
each individual person, or to the race? Are male and female
together in their relationship to each other the image of God?
2. Is subordination inherent in the very nature of a creation done
by the Triune God, or is subordination a consequence of sin?
3. Is the dominion given in Gen. 1:26, 29 given to both male
and female, and what is the significance of this for their
relationship to each other?
4. Does Gen. 3:16 imply that the male is to have dominion over
the female in the race?
5. Does the subordination of the Son to the Father (1 Cor. 15:27–
28) speak of some sort of subordination in the Trinity and
what are the implications of this for the unity of the Trinity?
What implications does this have for the distinction of persons
within the Trinity?
6. Does the image of God (Gen. 1:26, 29) in some way reflect
the unity of the Trinity and the distinction of persons within
the Trinity, and what implications does this have for the
relationship of male and female?
7. In the light of the above, must a distinction be made between
the way in which the Adamic cultures understand the
relationship of male and female, and the way in which the
distinction between male and female is to be understood and
expressed within the chosen race (1 Peter 2:9)?
8. What is the meaning and implication of “head” in Eph. 5:20–
33, and in what way is this illuminated by Eph. 1:22 and Eph.
5:20?
9. May the words submit or subordinate in Eph. 5:21–22 be
interpreted as meaning obedience as this word is understood by
the Adamic cultures?
10. In what way are the findings of this study to be applied to the
church, as she orders her life and worship?
11. In what way are the findings of this study to be applied to
marriage and the life of the family?
Resolved, That the CTCR coordinate a comprehensive study of
the scriptural relationship of man and woman, together with the
faculties of both seminaries, making use of other persons who are
competent in the area of theology, including women.
Action: Adopted (10).
(During discussion an amendment, Resolved, That this issue be
commended to the next convention of the Synod with the recommendation that an early session be scheduled for that purpose and
that an entire session be set aside for the debate, was declined. This
occurred after the delegates agreed to cease debate on the amendment but not on the main motion. A further amendment calling for

deletion of the entire paragraph containing a list of possible questions for consideration was declined. A number of delegates asked
that their negative votes be recorded. These are attached to the official copy of the minutes.)

Notes
1. For a list of documents prepared by the CTCR since 1995 which
address various topics or questions pertinent to the relationship of man
and woman, see the following. Most are available on the CTCR website
at www.lcms.org/ctcr (“Reports and Opinions”). Please note: Biblical Revelation & Inclusive Language (1998); Response to expressions of dissent
on woman suffrage (2002) and the ordination of women (2002, 2003) [see
2004 Convention Workbook, 75–77]; Response to Questions of BHE/CUS
on Lay Teachers of Theology (2003); Women in Combat (2003); Response
to Minnesota South District request on “The Service of Women in Congregational Offices of Executive Director/President or Assistant Director/
Vice President (2004); CTCR report on Authentein (2004); The Service of
Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices—Guidelines for Congregations (2005 [published text of 1994 report of the CTCR]). See also
CTCR’s 1987 report on Divorce and Remarriage, its 1985 report on Women
in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice, its 1981 report, Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective, and the 1968 report on
Woman Suffrage in the Church.
2. See the Appendix for a copy of 2007 Res. 3-10.
3. An “egalitarian” view may be contrasted with a “complementary”
view of marriage. The first assumes that the Bible’s command to be submissive within marriage is identical for the husband and the wife, so that the
husband is not understood to be in a position of authority or leadership any
more than the wife. In the complementary view the command for a wife’s
submission does entail leadership or “headship” on the part of the husband.
The complementary view is developed in this report.
4. Barbara Brunworth, “Men and Women in the Contemporary Culture:
The Intersection of Theology and the Social Sciences” (CTCR Archives).
Unpublished essay, presented to the CTCR December 4, 2006, 15–19.
5. English Standard Version (ESV); used hereafter, unless otherwise
noted.
6. Gen 5:2 states: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed
them and he named them Man [adam] when they were created.” See also
Gen 6:1.
7. ESV text reads “lower than the heavenly beings.” “[L]ower than
God” is offered as an alternate reading in the ESV margin.
8. When God speaks, He uses the first person plural, “let us make.”
When the narrative recounts what God did in the third person, it does not
use a plural form and write “they created man in their own image.” That
would express polytheism. Instead the text uses the singular, “God created
man in his own image.” When speaking of the true God in the third person,
the Old Testament employs the masculine singular verb form, “he did” or
“he said” (see CTCR Biblical Revelation & Inclusive Language). There is
only one God, one Creator, not many gods and goddesses.
9. The term “image” is a strong concrete word that can denote a statue,
for example, a statue/image of a god or king. It is often used to refer to
idols. The English translation “image” can be a little misleading in that we
can use it as a verb, one “images” A to B. The original Hebrew word tselem
and the Greek word eikõn do not convey the verbal idea. The terms simply
mean that one is a “replica” or “resemblance” of another. The other word
“likeness” (Hebrew demuth) is usually used in a weaker more abstract way
that denotes “similarity.” Both “image” and “likeness” can be used interchangeably. Genesis 1:27 and 9:6 use only “image,” while Gen 5:1 uses
only “likeness.”
10. With the Fall into sin, the fellowship with the Creator was completely lost. Yet the distinction from animals still remains even after the
Fall. The Creator continues to knit every human creature in the mother’s
womb and thereby still creates every human creature in His own image, in
distinction from animals. Although human nature is thoroughly corrupted
by sin, it is still human nature, not animal nature. Genesis 9 reveals that
human beings even after the Fall are still made in God’s image, which has
been ruined by the Fall and is restored by God’s saving activity. After the
flood God repeated His original mandate to Noah and his sons to be fruitful
and multiply and fill the earth (see also Gen 8:17). God granted them per-

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 321

4/15/10 2:40 PM