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
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