LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 38

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

38 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

We find no statement in Scripture which prohibits women from
holding office on the boards and committees of Synod whether such
offices are filled by election or by appointment.

In arriving at this conclusion the CTCR and the Synod did
not change their attitude toward the authority of the Scripture.
The Synod did change its understanding of the nature and func-
tion of the franchise, namely, that it is an instrument, not for
usurping authority, but for preventing the usurpation of au-
thority.

Between the Denver convention (1969) and the Milwaukee
convention (1971), a number of overtures were received by the
secretary of the Synod which were critical of the Synod’s action
in approving woman suffrage in the church.

Some of these overtures call for a restudy of the whole ques-
tion, others for the rescinding of Res. 2-17 of the Denver con-
vention.

Some of the overtures give as the reason for their request
that the Scripture passages which had in times past been used
against woman suffrage in the church forbid suffrage. One over-
ture (2-172) asserts that woman suffrage has raised confusion
and caused enmity in some churches.

Because lack of time at the Milwaukee convention prevented
a resolution of the issues raised by these overtures, the overtures
were referred to the Synod's Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.

The CTCR finds no fault with the exegesis and the use made
of the passages treated in its document entitled Woman Suffrage
in the Church. It holds that Denver Res. 2-17 is not contrary to
the Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.

The CTCR recognizes that a change ina long accepted policy
and practice may cause confusion and anxiety in the minds of
some Christians. It recognizes also that it is one of the objectives
of the Synod “to bring about the largest possible uniformity in
church practice, church customs, and, in general, in congrega-
tional affairs."’ (Constitution of the LCMS, Art. III 5)

The CTCR also recognizes that circumstances vary widely
from congregation to congregation, and that the need for woman
suffrage may appear pressing in some congregations, while in
others such need may be minimal or even nonexistent.

The CTCR urges all members of the Synod to recognize the
right of each congregation to judge according to its circum-
stances whether it is necessary or expedient for it to introduce
woman suffrage. (Cf. Bylaw 1.09)

In view of the reasons set forth above the CTCR recommends
that the Synod abide by Denver Res. 2-17.

Adopted by the CTCR. November 1972

APPENDIX B

An Opinion of the CTCR on the Interpretation of
“A Review of the Question ‘What Is a Doctrine?’

The Board of Control of a synodical institution has requested
the CTCR for a theological opinion on a matter which is officially
before the board. In offering the following response, the CTCR
wishes to emphasize that it is giving a theological opinion in
response to a theological question: it is not acting as a judicial
body to pass judgment on the case before the Board of Control.
We understand the basic question of the Board of Control to be:
Does the document entitled “A Review of the Question ‘What
Is a Doctrine?’ maintain that matters pertaining to the author-
ship of Biblical books and the historicity of certain Biblical
accounts are outside the scope of ‘doctrine,’ so that it is im-
proper to regard certain opinions on such matters as “false
doctrine’? The following considerations are involved in answer-
ing this question.

1. The document recognizes that the term “doctrine” is used
in various senses in the church. It may be used to refer to the
organic whole of Christian teaching centering in Jesus Christ,
or to a part of the Biblical teaching on Christian faith and life,
or even to the activity of teaching. The term ‘false doctrine”
may legitimately reflect any of these senses of “doctrine.”

2. In any of these senses, the term “doctrine” is normally
used to refer to basic Biblical teaching on Christian faith and life
and not to describe specific details of the Biblical teaching. For
example, the Biblical teachings that Nimrod was a hunter,
that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, or that the temple was
located in Jerusalem are not usually considered “doctrines” in
themselves.

3. The document states that ‘Teachings contrary to or im-
properly drawn from Holy Scripture must be rejected” (III, 4).
Whenever Biblical teachings of any kind (whether we call them
“doctrines” or not) are denied or contradicted, ‘‘doctrine” is
affected. Whatever the specific subject may be with which they
deal, false teachings undermine the authority of Holy Scripture.
The authority of Holy Scripture is “a” doctrine, that is, “a part
of the whole Biblical teaching on Christian faith and life,’ III,
2. Moreover, Holy Scripture is also the church's only source for
“the” doctrine, that is, the organic whole of Christian teaching
centering in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the denial or contradic-
tion of any teaching of Scripture involves doctrine. The words
of Dr. C. F. W. Walther quoted in the document need to be
remembered:

If, in a doctrinal controversy, the dispute is about doctrines which

do not belong to the articles of faith, everything depends for us on

whether those who contradict show that they do so because they do
not want to submit to the Word of God, and therefore on whether,
while appearing to let the basic doctrines of the Word of God stand.
they nevertheless overthrow the very foundation upon which all
these doctrines rest: the Word of God. (Quoted in note 25 from Der
Lutheraner, XXVII [May 1, 1871], 131)

4. Just as we do not usually refer to all Biblical teachings as
“doctrines,” so also we do not ordinarily label Jesus’ statements
about authorship or the historicity of certain events as “doc-
trines.”” However, the denial or contradiction of the intended
meaning of such statements affects both the authority of Scrip-
ture and the person of Christ and is therefore a doctrinal matter.
The CTCR has written:

Differences of opinion exist within The Lutheran Church — Missouri

Synod on the import of the words of Christ and other statements of

Holy Scripture concerning the human authorship of certain Old

Testament books. Much of the concern in this issue is not intrinsically

isagogical, but is rather related to the sola scriptura and solus Christus

principles of Lutheranism. Some maintain that Christ and the Biblical
authors clearly teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Isaiah and

Daniel wrote the entire books that bear their names, and David wrote

Psalm 110, while others question these conclusions. This difference of

opinion raises a Christological question: Can one question the desig-

nations of authorship employed by Jesus without thereby calling into
question His sinless manhood, omniscience, and even His deity? It
also raises a question with regard to the authority of Scripture: Can
one challenge any statement of Holy Scripture on the authorship of

Biblical books without thereby challenging the authority and truth-

fulness of the Scriptures? ‘Quoted from p.3 of the CTCR document

entitled The Witness of Jesus and Old Testament Authorship.)

5. The document states that “A mistaken exegesis of a pas-
sage or section of Scripture does not constitute false doctrine,
provided it does not conflict with any part of the Christian doc-
trine” (III, 5). Here the words ‘mistaken exegesis” have refer-
ence to interpretations which are not in conflict with other state-
ments of Scripture but are “mistaken” for other reasons. This
statement does not say that mistaken exegesis can never involve
false doctrine. On the contrary, any exegesis which conflicts
with ‘any part of the Christian doctrine,” including the authority
of Scripture, is false doctrine.

6. When the document states that “‘Isagogical judgments, that
is, statements dealing with the authorship and background of
Biblical books, are not in themselves ‘doctrine’ or ‘doctrines’
but aids to the better understanding of Scripture” (III, 6, italics
added), it does not imply that the isagogical information provided
by the Scriptures is unrelated to doctrine. Such information
cannot be contradicted without calling the authority of Scripture
into question. Moreover, while “incorrect isagogical judgments
are not in themselves false doctrines” (italics added), they are
false doctrine if they set aside or call into question what the
Scriptures teach. Such isagogical judgments undermine Biblical
authority and thereby “endanger not only individual Christian
doctrines but the whole Christian doctrine.” (III, 6)

7. In our previously published statements, we have noted the
following two examples of such incorrect isagogical judgments:
(1) that Moses did not write of Jesus in “his writings” (John
5:39-47), and (2) that “David inspired by the Spirit” did not
call Jesus “Lord” (Matt. 22:43: Ps. 110:1). With regard to the
former, the commission has explicitly stated that Jesus in John
5:39-47 attributes authorship to Moses, but without explicitly
stating the extent of that authorship (cf. A Response to Questions
on “The Witness of Jesus and Old Testament Authorship.” ques-
tions 6 and 9). Concerning the latter, the commission has stated
that ‘David is named by Jesus as the author of Ps. 110” in Matt.
22:43, and has noted that in that passage Jesus “argues from the