LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 463

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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