# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S529
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

518 WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THE CHURCH

committees and that we urge all men to fulfill the full
stewardship of their responsibility in the church; and be
it further

Resolved, That the Synod declare women eligible to
serve as advisory members on synodical boards, com-
missions, and committees within the framework of Scrip-
tural principles; and be it further

Resolved, That women be granted such membership
... by appointment only; and be it finally

Resolved, That the matter of full membership of
women on synodical boards, commissions. and committees
be referred to the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations for further study since this involves broader
issues beyond the purview of the assignment given to this
committee.

C. SUMMARY TO DATE

It is clear from the notices given above that the
question of woman suffrage has been with The Lu-
theran Church — Missouri Synod a long time. More-
over, it is evident that through the years a large body
of opinion opposed woman suffrage on the basis of cer-
tain Scripture passages which, it was assumed. specifi-
cally prohibited woman from exercising the franchise
in a Christian congregation.

On the other hand, the record also indicates that the
official position on this matter was challenged from time
to time by persons who were persuaded that the Scrip-
ture passages in question did not in fact speak to the
subject of woman suffrage directly. Many of these indi-
viduals were sure that the matter of franchise was
a question of judgment rather than of doctrine.

Finally, the New York convention added the issue
of holding office as a matter to be dealt with in the dis-
cussion of woman suffrage in the church. What follows
is written with the New York resolutions in mind. It
consists of a reexamination of the Biblical passages
involved and of certain recommendations that follow
from a study.of these texts in the contemporary situa-
tion.

Before proceeding to the exegetical task, it will be
useful to insert here a notice on the limitations of the
present inquiry. The presentation to follow does not
propose to deal with the very complex question of
women occupying the office of the public ministry. The
New York resolutions (2-05) and 2-06) call for a reex-
amination of the matter of woman suffrage as it relates
to the issue of holding office, particularly on the level
of synodical responsibility. Since service on synodical
boards, commissions, and committees can hardly be
discussed without reference to offices within congrega-
tional structures, the present study has included the
latter consideration within its purview.

Ill. Exegetical Evaluation

The first point to be made in this section is that the
exegetical study presented to the St. Paul convention,
as described above (I,B,3), offers a rather detailed
analysis of the passages generally cited in the course
of our synodical life as prohibiting woman suffrage.
That interpretation is given on pages 555 to 564 of the
Proceedings of 1956. The following four passages are

there dealt with: Galatians 3:26-29; 1 Cor. 11:2-16;
1 Cor. 14: 33b-38; and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. The committee it-
self acknowledges its indebtedness to a book by Fritz
Zerbst entitled, Das Amt der Frau in der Kirche
(Vienna, 1950), translated by Albert C. Merkens under
the title: The Office of Woman in the Church: A Study
in Practical Theology (St. Louis, 1955).

It may be useful to review the substance of the com-
mittee’s exegetical work as presented to the St. Paul
convention. It begins with a statement on the distinc-
tion between the orders of creation and of redemption.
On the basis of the difference between these two kinds of
structure, the committee correctly concludes that Gala-
tians 3: 26-29, 1 Cor. 12:13, and Col. 3:11 are passages
which describe human relationships and personal iden-
tities in terms of redemption. In the redemptive order,
social as well as racial and sexual distinctions are tran-
scended by that unity which Christ has given to His
church. In this context the statement of 1956 applies
Gal. 3: 26-29 to the order of redemption and shows that
it ts improper to use this Pauline text as a basis for
supporting the cause of woman suffrage.

Three other passages remain. They are 1 Cor. 11:2-
16; 1 Cor. 14:33b-38; and 1 Tim. 1:11-15. These are then
discussed in some detail.

The first of these texts (1 Cor. 11:2-16) reads as fol-
lows:

I commend you because you remember me in everything
and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them
to you. But I want you to understand that the head of
every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband,
and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or
prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but
any woman who prays or prophesies with her head un-
veiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head
were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then
she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a
man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For
man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for
man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her
head because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord
woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
for as woman was made from man, so man is now born
of woman. And all things are from God.) Judge for your-
selves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her
head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that
for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if
a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is
given to her for a covering. If anyone is disposed to be
contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the
churches of God. (RSV)

Here the apostle insists that “a woman disgraces her
head if she prays or prophesies bareheaded” (1 Cor.
11:5). Paul’s point, as the committee indicates. is that
a service of worship, related as it is to the order of
redemption, ought not to serve as the occasion for vitiat-
ing the proper relationship of women to men in the
order of creation, As C. K. Barrett has put it in his
commentary on First Corinthians (New York, 1968),
p. 251: “The oneness of male and female in Christ (Gal.
3:28) does not obliterate the distinction given in crea-
ion.”

It is clear from the passage itself, in its context, that