# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S64
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

64

SYNOD REPORTS

7. CTCR Response to Board for University Education/Concordia
University System Request regarding “Women as Presidents
of LCMS Colleges and Universities”
Question:

In correspondence dated December 18, 2009, the Board for
University Education/Concordia University System requested an
opinion from the CTCR on the matter of “Women as Presidents of
LCMS Colleges and Universities.” The specific question that the
CTCR was asked to address is this: “If the president of an LCMS
college or university is not directly responsible for carrying out the
official functions of the pastoral office, is there any theological reason
why a woman could not serve as the president of an LCMS college
or university?”
Response:

1. First, the CTCR holds that the word “could” in the above question is most properly understood in the sense of “may.” Clearly
the question is not about a woman’s capability to serve in this
office, but whether this is theologically permissible under the
stated conditions.
2. With this clarification, the CTCR’s answer to the question is
“No.” There is no theological reason why a woman may not
serve as the president of an LCMS college or university if the
“job description” for this office does not involve direct responsibility for carrying out the official functions of the pastoral
office. Conversely, of course, if the “job description” for this
office at a particular institution requires carrying out the official
functions of the pastoral office, then a woman is not eligible to
serve in this office.
Adopted
February 12, 2010
8. Response to “Request for CTCR Opinion concerning Continued
Eligibility of an Inactive Emeritus Member under Article VI of the
Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod”
Background and Request to the CTCR:

In a letter dated September 7, 2009, a district president depicts
a scenario in which an emeritus ordained member of the LCMS
is receiving Holy Communion in a member congregation of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Referring to the
Synod’s Constitution, he then asks the CTCR to give an opinion on
two questions:

Question 1: Is reception of the Lord’s Supper “[t]aking part in the services and sacramental rites” of a congregation, as that phrase is used in
Article VI, Section 2 b, of the Constitution?
If the answer to Question 1 is yes, then;
Question 2: Is the reception of the Lord’s Supper by a member of
Synod, with a congregation that is a member of a church body that is not
in church fellowship with The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (e.g.,
the ELCA), a failure of the membership requirement of “[r]enunciation
of unionism and syncretism of every description” as that phrase is used
in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution?

The district president notes that consideration was given to
requesting an opinion from the CCM, but the decision was made
instead to request an opinion from the CTCR based on an earlier CCM
decision regarding a similar issue. In a 2002 request, “Interpretation of
Article VI 2 b (02-2278)” the CCM was asked: “Could you explain the
exact meaning of Article VI 2 b of the Constitution which proscribes
members of Synod from ‘taking part in the … sacramental rites of
heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confessions’;
specifically, with reference to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in

heterodox congregations? Does this forbid members of Synod from
communing in such congregations (presumably congregations not
in fellowship with the LCMS) or does it only forbid members from
being celebrant or helping in the distribution of the elements or some
other service at the altar?”

The CCM declined to offer a specific response to this question, stating:
Article VI indicates that taking part in a service or sacramental rite
of a heterodox congregation or a congregation of mixed confession is an
act of unionism and syncretism. The specific questions are then: 1) What
constitutes “taking part”? 2) What constitutes a “service”? 3) What constitutes a “heterodox congregation”? 4) What constitutes a “congregation
of mixed confession”? The answer to these questions relates to a minister
of religion’s commitment to witness publicly and privately to the one and
only Gospel set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Among the functions of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations is to “provide guidance
to the Synod in matters of theology and church relations” (Bylaw 3.925
b). Thus this question should be directed to that commission.5

CTCR Response

As the CTCR has considered this request and the issues raised
therein, it can offer only a limited response. While it can address
certain issues raised in the district president’s request in light of the
CCM response cited above, it cannot respond directly to the specific
questions raised.
1. The CTCR has addressed the matter of a Lutheran communing at
the altar of a church with which his or her church body is not in
doctrinal agreement. On page 25 of its 1983 report Theology and
Practice of the Lord’s Supper, the CTCR asks: “Is it proper for a
Lutheran to attend the Lord’s Supper at the altars of churches not
in doctrinal agreement with the church body of which he/she is a
member?” It responds:
In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the
Lord’s Supper (cf. pp. 19–23), and in agreement with Lutheranism’s
historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the Lord’s Supper at nonLutheran altars. Since participation in Holy Communion, Scripturally and
confessionally understood, entails agreement in the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be appropriate to attend the Lord’s Supper in a church
with which such agreement is not shared.

What is said here about Lutherans in general (i.e., members of
Lutheran congregations) certainly applies also to Lutheran pastors
(emeritus or otherwise), who by virtue of their office bear a special responsibility “to witness publicly and privately to the one and
only Gospel set forth in the Holy Scriptures” (see CCM response
cited above). However, the response given in the CTCR’s 1983 report
does not answer the specific questions posed by the district president
about “the continued eligibility of an inactive emeritus member under
Article VI of the Constitution.”
2. Certain terminological questions raised in the district president’s request in reference to the CCM’s 2002 Opinion—such
as the definitions of “service” or of “heterodox congregation”
or “congregation of mixed confession”—are matters which can
be considered theologically. For example, in its 2001 report,
The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship: Report on
Synodical Discussions, the CTCR addresses the question of the
meaning of a “service” and defines it as “any occasion in which
the Word of God is preached and prayer is made to Him by a fully
authorized church worship leader.” The document further notes
that the same understanding of the meaning of a service was articulated by a 1973 Opinion of the Commission on Worship (with
the concurrence of the CTCR), “What is a service?”6
In a 1973 Opinion, Statement on Lutheran/Non-Lutheran Marriage Ceremonies, the CTCR defined the term heterodox as
“those who hold theological opinions not in accord with our

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 64

4/15/10 2:38 PM