# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S182
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

182

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

report” (SWCSOGC, 4), which effectively changed the long‐standing position of the Synod on the service
of women in certain congregational offices. It is also true, however, that this resolution was adopted
only after extended and impassioned debate, and then by a disconcertingly slim majority (52.5%, 576520). Another motion was immediately passed at the 2004 convention (by a vote of 639‐348) to allow
delegates to record their negative votes. Many lined up to do so; the convention minutes (July 15, 2004)
record the names of 210 delegates who registered their dissent in this way at the convention itself.

In fact, the confusion and division caused by the narrow adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A (and perhaps other
narrowly adopted resolutions in recent years) was undoubtedly one of the factors that led the to the
2010 BRTFSSG’s proposal at the 2010 convention to amend Synod Bylaw 1.6 by including the following
provision (proposed as new Bylaw 1.6.3):
1.6.3. Doctrinal resolutions of special significance (such as those initiating, modifying, or
repealing specific positions or practices of the Synod) may be adopted for the
information, counsel, and guidance of the membership.

Dissent to this action of the Synod continued after the 2004 convention. In 2004 and 2005, a number of
pastors, congregations, and circuits formally expressed their dissent from 2004 Res. 3‐08A and
submitted it to the CTCR in accordance with [2004] Bylaw 1.6.2. The CTCR responded to this (and other
expressions of dissent) in its December 2006 document CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent (20042006).
More than a dozen overtures (including overtures from ten districts, several pastoral conferences and
circuit forums, and various congregations) were submitted to the 2007 Synod convention asking that
2004 Res. 3‐08A be “rescinded” and/or that the CTCR be asked to “re‐study,” “re‐consider,” or “critically
review” the conclusions of its 1994 report. It should be noted that several other overtures (including
overtures from two districts, one district board of directors, and various congregations) asked that the
Synod “affirm” 2004 Res. 3‐08A. Hence, 2007 Overture 3‐78 “To Reconsider and Clarify Scripture
Passages re Role of Women” (submitted by the Texas District) summarizes well the state of affairs in the
Synod at this time: “Confusion continues regarding the proper roles and service of women in the
church.” The 2007 convention responded by adopting (by a vote of 870‐286) Res. 3‐07 “To Study CTCR
Reports Relating to the Service of Women in the Church,” which also encouraged awaiting release of the
CTCR’s forthcoming report on the scriptural relationship of man and woman. That report, The Creator’s
Tapestry: Scriptural Perspectives on Man‐Woman Relationships in Marriage and the Church, was
released by the CTCR in December 2009. It was “commended for study” by the Synod in 2010 Res. 3‐06.
At the 2010 Synod convention, much time and attention was devoted to responding to the ELCA’s 2009
Assembly decisions and actions regarding human sexuality, as well as to the sweeping Synod
restructuring recommendations brought forward at that convention by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Synodical Structure and Governance [BRTFSSG]. Only one overture (3‐28, from a district, circuit forum,
and two congregations) expressed concern about 2004 Res. 3‐08A, asking for “review” of the issue of
“the role of women in the church.” At the 2013 convention, concerns about 2004 Res. 3‐08A and the
service of women were expressed in the form of several overtures submitted by districts, circuits, and
congregations (4‐16 through 4‐21; 4‐65—cf. the reference in President Harrison’s request to overtures
passed by “recent district conventions”).
Although (as evidenced by President Harrison’s request) questions and concerns persist in the Synod
about various aspects of the service of women in the church, it appears that at least some of the
concerns expressed immediately after the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A have been addressed or allayed
by subsequent reaffirmations and/or clarifications of the Synod’s position on the service of women such
as those offered in the 2005 Guidelines, the CTCR’s 2006 report responding to expressions of dissent on
this issue, and the CTCR’s 2009 report on The Creator’s Tapestry. To whatever extent that may be true,
however, there is in the view of the CTCR an important lesson to be learned from the confusion and
division caused by the narrow adoption of a Synod resolution (2004 Res. 3‐08A) that had the effect of
changing the long‐standing position of the Synod on a significant and sensitive issue in the life of the
church (the service of women in congregational offices).
Page 3 of 9

dissenters to this resolution have argued). Rather, this resolution permits women to hold such
humanly established offices only “so long as these offices do not call upon the holders of these
offices to ‘perform those functions that are distinctive to the public exercise of the ministry of
Word and Sacraments’ or to carry out ‘official functions [that] would involve public
accountability for the function of the pastoral office.’” (Further comments on these restrictions
follow below.)




This section also clarifies the specific nature of the “guidelines” requested by the Synod
President following the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A. The President specifically requested
“guidelines for congregations and District constitutional committees to follow in revising
congregational constitutions and bylaws” (emphasis added) in a way that conformed to the
position and polity of the Synod. (Hence, two of the representatives on the five‐person Task
Force appointed to prepare these guidelines were members of the CCM, and one of these CCM
members was the Secretary of the Synod.) Even though none of the subsequent sections of the
Guidelines is specifically titled “Guidelines,” therefore, it is clear from the President’s request
that the portion of the Guidelines that addresses the President’s request most specifically and
directly is the “Sample Paragraph for Congregational Constitutions” (page 21; see comments on
this section below).
This section also makes it clear that the “guidelines and recommendations” offered in the
document are intended to “summarize the actions and statements previously adopted by the
Synod which present its understanding of what the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions teach about the service of women in the church” (emphasis added). In other words,
it is not the purpose of the Guidelines to “break new ground” or suggest some further
modification of the Synod’s position. Their purpose is to summarize the position of the Synod
and to offer guidance to “congregations and District constitutional committees” for applying and
implementing it in specific situations as needed and desired.

“Scriptural and Confessional Basis” (page 20)
The CTCR regards the five principles presented in this section of the document to be an accurate
summary of what the Synod has said in past statements and resolutions about the service of women in
the church. It is aware that some members of the Synod continue to have questions and concerns about
whether 2004 Res. 3‐08A and the conclusions of the CTCR’s report on The Service of Women in
Congregational and Synodical Offices are consistent with the Scriptural and Confessional principles set
forth in this section. It is also aware that some members of the Synod may not agree fully with some of
the previously adopted resolutions of the Synod summarized in these principles—e.g., resolutions that
“permit women to vote in congregational assemblies (without any limitations on matters on which they
may vote)” and/or resolutions that permit women “to read the Scriptures in public worship services” (cf.
1969 Res. 2‐17 and 1989 Res. 3‐14). For these very reasons, however, the CTCR commends these
principles to the Synod as a helpful basis and starting point for continuing discussion of these questions
and concerns about the service of women in the church.

(a) They shall conform to the confessional basis of the Synod as set forth in Article II of
its Constitution and shall ordinarily cite the pertinent passages of the Scriptures, the
Lutheran Confessions, and any previously adopted official statements and resolutions of
the Synod.
(b) Such resolutions require a two‐thirds vote for adoption. The floor committee shall
determine which resolutions fall into this category. The convention may overrule such
determination by a two‐thirds vote. The convention may also, by simple majority vote,
refer the matter to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for evaluation,
refinement, development, recommendation to the next convention of the Synod.
(c) All adopted doctrinal resolutions are to be honored and upheld by the members of
the Synod in accordance with each resolution’s intended status until such time as the
Synod amends or repeals them. (2010 Today’s Business, 179)
This proposal, submitted via 2010 Res. 8‐23, died (like many other 2010 restructuring proposals) due to
a lack of time and perceived priority. The Commission believes, however, that some revision of the
bylaws along these lines—“raising the bar” for the adoption of doctrinal resolutions that would have the
effect of changing or repealing the current position of the Synod—is well worth revisiting and
reconsidering.
Section‐by‐Section Review of and Commentary on the 2005 Guidelines
“ Background” (page 19)
The CTCR finds the “Background” section of the Guidelines to be helpful in the following ways:


This section helps to clarify what the Synod did—and did not do—in adopting Res. 3‐08A at the
2004 convention. The Synod did not adopt, approve, or affirm the CTCR’s 1994 report The
Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices as such or in its entirety. Rather, it
affirmed two specific conclusions “based on” this report which are summarized as follows in the
second “Resolved” of Res. 3‐08A: 1) “that women may not serve in the office of pastor nor
exercise any of its distinctive functions,” and 2) “that women may serve in humanly established
offices in the church as long as the functions of these offices do not make them eligible to carry
out “’ official functions [that] would involve public accountability for the function of the pastoral
office.’”



This section makes it clear, further, that 2004 Res. 3‐08A does not simply “permit women to
hold all humanly established congregational and synodical offices” (as many formal and informal
Page 4 of 9

course, does not determine the official position of the Synod. This is done by the Synod in convention.
1989 Res. 3‐14, while referencing this 1985 opinion of the CTCR, proceeds to state: “Resolved, That the
congregations of the Synod proceed with care and sensitivity in making decisions permitting the lay
reading of the Scriptures, recognizing decisions in this regard lie in the area of Christian judgment.”
Finally, the CTCR notes what has been regarded by some (and understandably so) as a significant
omission or deficiency in this section of the Guidelines document, reflecting a similar omission or
deficiency in the CTCR’s 1994 report which served as the basis for the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A. One
concern of many dissenters from 2004 Res. 3‐08A is that it contains no explicit reference to or
argumentation concerning the foundational theological principle of “the order of creation.” The CTCR
responded to this concern in its December 2006 report CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent (20042006) by stating, in summary:
The CTCR agrees with the dissenters that the order of creation is clearly taught in Scripture and
has important implications for the service of women in the church—specifically with reference
to the pastoral office and its distinctive functions. Contrary to the claim of some of the
dissenters, the order of creation argument has not been ignored by the Synod or by the CTCR. In
fact, all of the recent CTCR documents on women’s service in the church (1985, 1994, 2005) take
into account what Scripture teaches about the order of creation in their argumentation. (28)
It is true, however, that argumentation regarding “the order of creation” is not made explicit in the
CTCR’s 1994 report (or in 2004 Res. 3‐08A), which was clearly a cause for concern on the part of many
who dissented from 2004 Res. 3‐08A. It is also true that the 1994 report does not explicitly address the
question of the various implications of the order of creation for humanly instituted offices in the church.
However, subsequent CTCR documents (e.g., the CTCR’s 2004 Opinion included as “Appendix B” in the
January 2005 document, and the CTCR’s 2009 report The Creator’s Tapestry) do attempt to address
certain aspects of this issue. The latter document also states that “the Commission intends to continue
the work begun here by providing additional resources to address specific areas of concern,” including
“the understanding and value of such ideas as ‘the order of creation’ and ‘headship’” (4).
Finally, it should be noted that while the Commission affirms that “the order of creation is clearly taught
in Scripture,” and while it acknowledges that questions about the understanding and implications of this
issue have not been sufficiently addressed and articulated, it also recognizes that questions about
exactly “how to apply” the order of creation to specific questions of practice and polity (beyond its
application to the pastoral office and its distinctive functions) are very difficult to address with complete
certainty, clarity, and consensus on the basis of Scripture alone. In other words, the Bible does not spell
out explicitly “where to draw the line(s)” when it comes to exactly how the Biblical principle of the order
of creation applies to all matters of congregational polity and practice. Hence the need for continued
careful study and discussion of this matter (and patience, charity, and restraint where there is
disagreement about these very difficult questions of application), to which the Commission itself is
strongly committed as is indicated above.
“Sample Paragraph for Congregational Constitutions” (page 21)

Regarding the issue of women reading the Scriptures in the context of public worship, it should be noted
that (as 1989 Res. 3‐14 itself acknowledges) the CTCR, in its 1985 report on Women in the Church (which
has been repeatedly commended by the Synod for study and guidance), stated: “[I]t is the opinion of
the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and
should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to a lay person, woman or man” (p. 45). The CTCR, of

The CTCR appreciates the clarity with which the “sample paragraph” provided in this section of the
document (for use in preparing or revising congregational constitutions) affirms the historic position of
the Synod by stating that (1) “a woman shall not serve as pastor of this congregation” and that (2) a
woman may not hold any office that calls upon her “to carry out the specific functions of the pastoral

Page 5 of 9

Page 6 of 9

2016 Convention Workbook