Well, that is surprising to me given the report I've been laboring through. It is certainly something to rejoice over but I anticipate that this decision will be overturned either at the next Synod or one in the near future thereafter.

Given that this decision has been made, I shall cease from sharing my evaluation of the report although I will include where I have reached thus far below. grin

_________________________________________________________


Quote
4.3.3.1 The general purpose of the special ministries
But Ephesians 4 does not present edification of the church as a direct goal of the ordained ministries. A superficial reading of Ephesians 4:7-16 could create the impression that people in ordained ministries have church edification as their task. In that case Ephesians 4:12 is taken to mean that, besides the goal of equipping the congregation, people in ordained ministries have to build it up. But if 4:16 is read in conjunction with 4:12, the body is clearly responsible for building up itself. If people in ordained ministries fulfil their duty and equip the faithful for ministry, the body is able to build up itself.
This whole section tries to make the office of Elder akin to a "Facilitator", i.e., simply one who helps others to help themselves through suggestions, nurturing, etc.... another post-modern idea. The matter of "rule" is totally absent as seen from the above quote. Paul's emphasis in Eph 4:12 is BOTH the recognition of the offices created and designated by Christ, the men which are called and gifted to those offices are to 'equip' the saints AND the general ministry of each individual within the Body of Christ exercised in their daily lives. The end (v. 13) is that all believers would come to a unity in the truth and maturity in the faith. All are called to be active Christians, expressing their faith to the world as they grow in the knowledge of God (cf. Col 1:9, 10).

Re: 10.4.4.3 - 10.4.6 It seems to me that this entire section repeats the error of diminishing the entire biblical concept of "headship" by downplaying or even denying the aspect of authority = rule, which they even admit has been the traditional view of the Church. They do this in several ways, mainly by implication that "rule" is a pejorative term which must be disassociated from "love". An example of this is seen in sections 10.4.4.3 and 10.4.4.5. There is a principle of authority established by Paul in this section of Eph 5:21-33 illustrated in 3 relationships. Equally, Paul established the principle of submission of those who are under that authority. The MANNER in which each of the parties within those relationships is to conduct themselves is also established. However, the report seeks to blur and even replace the principles of authority and submission with the manner with which those principles are to be practiced making the manner the primary and/or sole focus of the passage. I believe this is a grievous error as it ultimately has a negative impact on how one is to understand the nature and position of Christ as Almighty God Who currently sits at the right of the throne of God from which He rules all things including His Church. Secondly, it has a similar impact on the nature and relational aspect of the covenantal relationship of; parents to children, government to citizens, employers to employees and marriage, all of which relationships are explained further in the NT.

Quote
10.5.4.1 The wife’s reaction to injustice within marriage
The pericope 1 Peter 3:1-7 does not primarily give general guidelines for marriage (as one finds in Eph 5:21-32 and Col 3:18-19). The author deals specifically with Christian wives’ duty if their husbands are unfair or unbelievers and with a Christian husband’s duty to his wife – all this in a society in which discrimination against women was acceptable and common practice, and in which wives were expected to conform to their husbands’ religious preference.
This section simply is grounded upon poor exegesis; perhaps eisogesis which should be obvious to most everyone. 1Pet 3:1 reads: "In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word,...". Thus the passage certainly does give "general guidelines for marriage"; primarily addressing marriages where both parties are believers but with the inclusion of marriages where there is an unbelieving husband, i.e., what Paul writes applies to ALL marriages whether both parties are believers (assumed) or by way of exception, where the husband is an unbeliever. If this were not so then 3:7 would make an unbelieving man a "co-heir" of Christ along with the believing wife.

10:5.4.5ff certainly pertains to ALL wives and should not and cannot be restricted to only those wives who are married to an unbelieving spouse. This can be plainly see in Paul's reference to Sarah's behavior to Abram who was a believing man. Additionally, the report shoots itself in the foot at this point by referencing Sarah for she addresses Abraham as "lord" which is antithetical to what the report just previously tried to dismiss; the aspect of authority and rule in headship.

Quote
10.6.6 Conclusion
From the foregoing it is clear that Galatians 3:28 has specific implications for our understanding of scriptural passages pertaining to relations between husband and wife. Passages stating that (i) the husband is the wife’s head (cf eg Eph 5; 1 Cor 11); (ii) the wife has to be submissive to her husband (cf eg 1 Cor 14; Eph 5; Col 3:18) and (iii) wives have to observe silence (cf eg 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2) would conflict with Galatians 3:28 if one assumes that they do not indicate that wives, like their husbands, share in Christ’s salvation. Everyone who believes in Christ, including women, shares in the promise to Abraham.
This is the same reoccurring theme (error) that this report makes throughout; blurring or even denying "status", "roles", "authority", "rule", the nature of "office", etc., by asserting a false (unbiblical) "equality" between men and women that overrides these principles as is clearly seen in 10.6.7.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]