Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2010 · 64th Convention, Houston › Page 324

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 324

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 front matter 6 front matter 7 front matter 8 front matter 9 front matter 10 front matter 11 front matter 12 front matter 13 front matter 14 front matter 15 front matter 16 front matter 17 front matter 18 front matter 19 front matter 20 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
78. David Blankenhorn, whose research supports the assertions of this
entire paragraph, calls the declining numbers of men who raise the children
they beget “our most urgent social problem,” Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995).
One may also consult The National Marriage Project website at www.mar
riage.rutgers.edu regarding the problem of fatherlessness in America. On
the problem of comparatively less male than female commitment to Christianity, see also David Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2005).
79. See Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The Divorce Culture (New York:
Alfred A Knopf, Inc., 1996), 50–64, on changing female attitudes regarding
divorce. David Popenoe and the Rutgers University National Marriage Project studies state that roughly two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women
(see “The Top Ten Myths of Divorce,” http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publica
tions/pubtoptenmyths.htm). More men than women are using internet services to seek a spouse. See graphs attached to Carl Bialik, “Marriage-Maker
Claims Are Tied in Knots,” Wall Street Journal (July 29, 2009), A11. On
growing numbers of intentional single motherhood, see Emily Yoffe, “And
Baby Makes Two,” Slate (March 20, 2008), online edition at www.slate
.com/id/2185944/pagenum/all/.
80. See Phil 2:5–11. Note the connection between Christian submission
and humility. TDNT, Vol. 8: 45.
81. AE 36:116.
82. “To this congregation and to every member of it belong the keys, the
power to forgive sins, and to proclaim the gospel—privately, and publicly
if one is required to do so by others having equal authority.” AE 36:298.
83. AE 36:138–139, 145.
84. See The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices, 1. The priesthood also requires that all Christians, male and female,
are to judge the doctrine of their pastors. C. F. W. Walther, “The Sheep
Judge Their Shepherds,” at www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/sheep.htm.
85. Women in the Church provides a brief background to the concept
on p. 9. The term is sometimes used in the plural, “orders of creation,”
with reference to the fact that creation includes the establishment of such
various orders as marriage and economic vocation. Either in the singular
or the plural, “The point of this doctrine is to affirm that Christians like
all other human beings exist in a framework of universal structures that
are there prior to and apart from the fact that Christians believe in Christ
and belong to his Church.” Carl Braaten, No Other Gospel (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992), 120.
86. The “order of redemption” reminds us that in Christ, by faith, we
are all “one in Christ”—not Jew, Greek, male, female, etc. (Gal 3:28). See
Women in the Church, 22–27, which concludes its comparison of the orders: “The individual characteristics of believers are not abolished by the
order of redemption,” 27.
87. Mickey L. Mattox in “Luther on Eve, Women, and the Church”
notes that the reformer develops his understanding of women primarily

324

from the Old Testament, not the New Testament, and, specifically, from
Eve. The Pastoral Luther: Essays on Martin Luther’s Practical Theology,
Timothy J. Wengert, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 255.
88. Gustaf Wingren, Luther on Vocation, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957, reprint CPH, Concordia Heritage
Series, n.d.), 172.
89. Lutherans have referred to three “uses” of the Law of God. The first
is the Law’s use as a curb or check against human sinfulness as it condemns
sin and threatens punishment. The Law’s ability to show us our sin and
bring us to repentance is its second use. The third use is the guidance it
offers for Christian living that pleases God. Formula of Concord, Ep and
SD, Article VI.
90. A helpful survey of this topic in recent LCMS history is found in
Scott Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God: The Third Use of the Law in
Modern American Lutheranism (St. Louis: CPH, 2002).
91. “Here one should also note that Abraham says that he spoke most
respectfully to his wife. He did not give an order and did not say: ‘You must
obey me; I compel you; I demand from you.’ No, he said: ‘I beg you,’ and
he does not consider her action obedience; he considers it a favor, as though
by a superior person, in accordance with Peter’s precept (1 Peter 3:7): ‘Bestow honor on the female sex.’ But why did Moses record this? Doubtless
in order to present an example of a very fine marriage, something which
is indeed a rarity on earth but is most pleasing both to God and to men.
Therefore by means of this very example Peter exhorts spouses to learn to
love each other and to treat each other with respect and not as people are
now in the habit of doing. Husbands generally are lions in their homes and
are harsh toward wives and domestics. Similarly, the wives generally domineer everywhere and regard their husbands as servants. But it is foolish for
a husband to want to display his manly courage and heroic valor by ruling
his wife. On the other hand, it is also unbearable if wives want to dominate.
Such marriages—where both are capricious—are common, as the proverb
has it: ‘Three things are rare, but they are pleasing to God: harmony among
brothers, love among neighbors, and accord between spouses.’ The reason
is that people generally enter into this kind of life without prayer and, like
swine, regard only what is carnal. Therefore the wife does not see what is
truly good in her husband. On the other hand, the husband sees in his wife
only what displeases him. Since there is no mutual tolerance between them,
quarrels and countless outbursts of anger arise.” AE 3:353–54.
92. For example, Jerome questions false views of submission: “[F]requently wives are found to be much superior to husbands at ordering and
running the house, and educating the children, and maintaining family discipline, while the husbands live in luxury and pursue mistress after mistress.
Whether wives of such caliber should rule, or fear, their husbands, I leave to
the reader’s judgment.” Quoted by J. C. Cavadini, “The Sacramentality of
Marriage in the Fathers” Pro Ecclesia 17:4 (Fall 2008), 445.
93. See Augustine’s Eighty-three Different Questions in Fathers of the
Church, vol. 70, 42 and also his The Christian Combat, in Fathers of the
Church, vol. 21, 338–39, as referenced and quoted in Thomas C. Oden, Life
in the Spirit (San Francisco: Harper, 1992), 8.

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 324

4/15/10 2:40 PM