LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 67

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD REPORTS 67

“the appropriateness of women serving as Executive Director or
President or Assistant Director of Vice President of congregations.”
The commission placed this request on its agenda in September
2003 and in April 2004 adopted a response. Since the opinion was
not completed in time to be published in the 2004 Convention
Workbook, it was distributed to 2004 convention Floor Committee
3 and immediately made available online at www.lcms.org/ctcr.
Following the April 2004 meeting, the commission accepted a mi-
nority statement submitted by Mr. Paul Nus (also available online
at www.lcms.org/ctcr, and included in Appendix II of the Conven-
tion Workbook). As noted above in section I.A.4, this opinion has
also been included as an appendix in the CTCR’s 2005 booklet
containing its 1994 report on The Service of Women in Congrega-
tional and Synodical Offices. The opinion reads as follows:
Introduction

In response to a request from the Synod in 1989 (Res. 3-13A
“To Study and Clarify Services of Women in Congregational and
Synodical Offices”), the CTCR in 1994 adopted a report titled The
Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices. A dis-
senting opinion to this 1994 report was issued and signed by five
members of the CTCR, and the CTCR Executive Committee then
issued a response to the dissenting opinion.

The commission has been requested by the Minnesota South
District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to make a rec-
ommendation to the Synod regarding “the appropriateness of
women serving as Executive Director or President or Assistant Di-
rector or Vice President of congregations.” Our intent is not to re-
hearse the contents of the reports and documents referred to above.
They are available in the 1995 Convention Workbook. Rather, our
intent is to offer the congregations of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod some further reflections for consideration as they
make their decisions regarding the service of women in congrega-
tional offices.

We reaffirm the two key emphases made in the 1994 report The
Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices. First,
the Scriptures clearly teach that both men and women have been
baptized into the one Christ and into his one body, the Church (Gal.
3:18). Christ did not create a separate men’s church or a separate
women’s church. All the rights, privileges and responsibilities
given by Christ to His church on earth belong to the members of his
church, both Jew and Greek, both slave and free, and both male

,and female. This means that all members, both male and female,
should fully participate in the everyday life of their congregation,
Christ’s church in that place.

Second, “we must remain faithful to Biblical teaching regarding
the uniqueness of God’s gift of the pastoral office, and the divinely
given requirements which circumscribe it” (The Service of Women
in Congregational and Synodical Offices, Part 1.B.) The Scriptures
clearly teach that God has given the pastoral office and the exer-
cise of pastoral authority to men and not to women. For over 19
centuries Christendom has recognized this truth. Only during the
20" century in the West have some Protestant church bodies con-
tradicted this truth and ordained women. While the Scriptural re-
striction may contradict the prevailing winds of the egalitarian
Zeitgeist, the church belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the world.
Therefore The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod by the strength
of God intends to remain faithful to God’s Holy Word even when it
contradicts public opinion.

Edifying Decisions in Matters of Adiaphora

Congregational polity is an adiaphoron, neither commanded
nor forbidden in Holy Scripture. The New Testament is not an en-
cyclopedia that answers all possible questions. One cannot expect
these ancient documents to address the polity questions that arise
2,000 years later. In fact, the New Testament does not give any

mandates regarding the polity of a congregation or Synod. How a
congregation sets up its daily working arrangements and organi-
zational structure is left to the discretion of human reason and
sanctified common sense. How many committees it has and how
each committee operates are matters that belong to the area of
Christian freedom.

But to say that polity is an adiaphoron is only the beginning of
the discussion. For then the church has the difficult task of deter-
mining what would be wise and edifying for the church. In matters
of adiaphora—things neither commanded nor forbidden by Scrip-
ture—the church’s arrangements should support and reinforce the
Scriptural teaching. Even regarding matters of polity, which are
adiaphora, there should be a concern to support and reinforce the
church’s God-given doctrine and practice. For example, The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod requires an equitable distribu-
tion between lay delegates and pastoral delegates at synodical con-
ventions. Why? In order to support and reinforce the church’s
doctrine regarding both the priesthood of all believers and the pas-
toral office.

Therefore a key question is this: What type of polity and orga-
nizational structure will support and reinforce doctrine and prac-
tice as taught by the Scriptures?

Supporting the God-Given Family Structure

In addressing the above question one consideration deserves at-
tention. The congregation’s polity should uphold the God-given
family structure. It should not in effect subvert it, whether inten-
tionally or unintentionally, by setting up a completely egalitarian
arrangement that makes no distinction between husbands and
wives. Instead it should reflect and reinforce the family structure.

The New Testament frequently encourages the church to
strengthen the God-given family structure (e.g. | Cor. 7; 11; 14;
Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Tim. 2; | Pet. 3). In the first century there were
various winds blowing in the Zeitgeist, such as asceticism, licen-
tiousness, proto-gnosticism, over-realized eschatology, and others.
The upshot of it all was the temptation to devalue the institutions of
marriage and the family. To these temptations the Apostles spoke.
They reminded their Christian readers that the gospel of Christ
gives them freedom from sin so that they may serve within the Cre-
ator’s design for his human creatures. The gospel does not deliver
people from the Creator’s intent but for a joyful life within it. The
Creator designed and established marriage and the family. These
institutions are good gifts from God, to be received with thanks-
giving (1 Tim 4).

There is great significance in the creation of Adam and Eve
recorded in Genesis 2 and in the other Scriptural texts dealing with
creation (e.g., | Cor. 1 1:8-12). The Creator expressed his intent and
design for all future ‘Adams and Eves” precisely by the way in which
He created the first Adam and Eve. Unlike the animals, Eve was cre-
ated to be a helper fit for and corresponding to Adam. Therefore the
wife is not inferior to her husband but co-equal. The two become one
flesh. Moreover, God created Adam first and then Eve, and he cre-
ated Eve from Adam and for Adam. Thereby the Creator revealed his
design for the marriage relationship. The husband serves as the head
and the wife submits herself to her husband.

As Ephesians 5 shows, the gospel does not destroy this created
design but rather purifies it of sinful distortion. Therefore the
Christian husband exercises his headship in self-sacrificial love
for his wife as Christ did for the church, and the Christian wife
willingly and gladly submits herself to her husband as the church
does to Christ.

We live in a society where the traditional view of marriage is
increasingly under attack. Large segments of our culture dismiss
and even ridicule notions such as these: (1) the Creator created
Adam and Eve as Genesis 2 records; (2) thereby the Creator re-
vealed his design for marriage and for all future husbands and

2007 Convention Workbook