# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S242
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

242

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
that men and women at worship should conduct
themselves modestly and sensibly in keeping with
the customs of the time and, above all, in accordance with God’s will and design.46 Hence, the created distinction between men and women should be
honored in the church.47 “The ultimate significance
of the head covering consisted in its potential for
expressing a particular differentiation between
men and women. Paul’s concern therefore is not
simply with the maintenance of outward conduct.
For order and unity in the family there must be
leadership, and the primary responsibility for such
leadership is that of the husband and father.”48

order of creation, as attested by Paul’s discussion in
other passages referenced here.52
• Eph. 5:21–33 (in consideration with Col. 3:18–19):
Here Paul encourages the willing submission of
a wife to her husband. In this case, he bases his
argument not on the order of creation but on the
headship of Christ over the Church.53 This passage
does not subject all women to all men. Rather, it
reminds Christian wives to submit to their husbands for the sake of Christ (“as to the Lord”), in
other words, as a crucial and practical way of living
out their faith in Christ.54 The analogy of Christ’s
relationship to the church as “head” makes it clear
that the husband’s headship involves authority. This
authority, like Christ’s, is portrayed by Paul in a
positive, healthy, constructive, loving and protective
way. The husband is not to dominate, exploit or
embitter his wife (Col. 3:19). Rather, he is to love her
with a sacrificial love like that of Christ, which was
a sacrifice unto death.

• 1 Cor. 14:34–36: Paul sees nothing disgraceful in
submission (properly and biblically understood)
for either men or women. It is, first and foremost,
the position assigned to God’s creatures in relation
to their Creator.49 Paul has wives primarily in view
here when addressing order in the church.50 His
counsel to the women in Corinth is not merely a
matter of personal opinion (or prejudice!) but is
supported by God’s Word. Paul appeals to the Torah
in a general way, but the parallel in 1 Tim. 2:11–12
shows that he especially has in mind the Genesis
account or the order of creation.51

Commenting on Eph. 5:21–33, Gene Edward Veith
says: “The wife’s vocation is to submit to her husband.
The husband’s vocation is to give himself up for his wife.”
Ephesians 5, says Veith, “gives us a picture … of a husband who sacrifices himself — his wants, his needs, his
strength, his very life if it comes to that — for the good
of his wife.”55

• Gal. 3:28: Here Paul speaks about the order of redemption in Christ. This clearly does not negate the

Head devoted Himself totally to the needs of His church,
so the husband is to devote himself to the needs of his
wife. And as the church yields itself completely to the
love, care, and direction of the Lord, so the wife is to
yield herself to her husband.”56

46

48

CTCR, Women in the Church, 29.

49

Zerbst, 47.

50

Ibid., 48.

53
Thomas M. Winger, Concordia Commentary: Ephesians (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 2015), 605.

Ibid., 602–603. See also R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1966), 625.

Veith, God at Work, 80–81. Wives are not given an explicit directive
to sacrifice themselves for their husbands in this passage, although
there is no scriptural directive prohibiting women from giving of themselves in such a sacrificial way. It should be noted, however, that some
have drawn implications regarding women in combat from Ephesians
5, suggesting that only husbands (not wives) can properly serve in a
vocation that involves the wielding of the “sword” and risk sacrificing
their lives for their spouse without violating their God-given vocation.
For example, a 1998 resolution by the Southern Baptist Convention opposing women in combat cites Eph. 5:23–24 as a key passage in demonstrating “the divinely assigned role and responsibilities of self-sacrificial
male headship of the family” [emphasis added] and explicitly connects
this to “the moral justification for combat service by men rather than
women.” (See sbc.net/resolutions/1089.)
55

Lockwood, 509. See also R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1
and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966),
616–617, and Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians:
A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2000), 153.

PART 2

|

Sam. 24:9; 1 Chron. 21:5; 2 Chron. 25:5). In the historical

Another Old Testament passage that may seem to
suggest an inconsistency regarding women in combat is
Judges 9:50–54. Here Abimelech and his army encamped
against Thebez. The inhabitants fled to a tower, and while
Abimelech besieged it, a woman threw a stone onto Abimelech’s head from the tower. In this case, the woman
was not a regular combatant. Rather, it was a matter of
self-defense in an emergency situation.65

One specific text cited in 2013 Res. 2-12A as relevant
to this issue is Deut. 22:5: “A woman shall not wear a
man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak,
for whoever does these things is an abomination to the
LORD your God.” This passage is interpreted by some
as a specific admonition against women wearing the
fighting garments that a man would wear in combat. In
fact, the Old Testament directives in this regard extend
beyond military garments and include every kind of
domestic clothing as well as use of other utensils (Ex. 22:6
[stacked grain]; Lev. 11:32 [garment, skin or sack]; Lev.
13:49 [garment or skin]). Underlying this broader directive, however, is God’s concern that Israel, His chosen
people, honor and maintain the distinction and order of
the sexes as male and female established at creation.62

While the Old Testament passages cited above are
clearly descriptive of military attitudes and practices in
ancient Israel, sound principles of biblical interpretation do not allow us to apply them simply or directly to
the church (or state) today in some strict, prescriptive
manner. At the same time, these Old Testament passages
cannot simply be dismissed as meaningless or irrelevant
to the issue of women in combat.
Thus far, our focus has been on Scripture’s teaching
regarding male-female distinctions within the order of
creation. As 2016 Res. 5-11A makes clear, however (in
its final “Whereas”), Lutheran theology has always taken
seriously the role played by human reason and natural
law in supporting many scriptural truths and realities,
especially in the realm of creation and the civil realm:

The accounts of Deborah and Jael in Judges 4 and 5
are often cited as suggesting that men-only combatants
was not a strict rule or practice in the Old Testament.
Deborah, however, was not a military commander and
is not portrayed as being directly involved in the battle.
Although Jael killed Sisera, this took place in her tent
while Sisera slept and not (strictly speaking) in combat.63

Lutheran Christians have a high regard for God’s
gifts of human reason and natural law, and take
very seriously the many reason-based arguments
that have been made (by both Christians and
non-Christians) against women serving in combat
positions (e.g., the negative impact on the family;
the necessary stripping away of modesty to be
trained and perform combat functions; physical
strength comparison between men and women in
general; other physical and biological differences
between men and women; mixed gender troop
performance under combat conditions, etc.

62
Keil-Delitzsch, vol. 1, Fifth Book of Moses, 409, and Peter C. Craigie,
The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 287–288.
63
Deborah was a judge with prophetic gifts. She was not a military
commander. In order to secure the rights of her people, she summoned
Barak from Kedesh in the tribe of Naphtali to gather and lead an army
of men against the Canaanite army under the command of Sisera.
When Barak refused to go unless Deborah accompanied him, Deborah
agreed but then foretold that Sisera would fall to the hands of a woman.
Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh where he summoned the army;
she accompanied the Israelite army to Mount Tabor, while Sisera
gathered his army and chariots in the valley of Kishon. Deborah stayed
on Tabor while Barak and his army went down to attack Sisera and his
army. While Barak’s army won decisively, Sisera fled, eventually taking
refuge in the tent of Jael, wife of Heber, a Kenite (non-Hebrew ally).
Jael showed hospitality to Sisera, allowing him to lie down and rest in
her tent. When he slept, Jael drove a tent peg through Sisera’s temple.
Sisera was killed by a woman, but not in battle. Both Deborah and
Barak then celebrated the event in a song (Judges 5). Consider C.F. Keil
and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes,
vol. 2, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & II Samuel (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1980), 301–306.

2019 Convention Workbook

10

Moreover, commentators are in general agreement that
the story of Deborah emphasizes the shaming of Barak,
who fails to lead Israel in battle (Judges 4:9).64

books of the Old Testament, male armies abound, and
there is never any suggestion of women serving as
combatants (Gen. 14:14–15; Num. 31:3, 21, 49; Deut. 20:5–8;
Judges 7:7; 1 Sam. 23:8–37; 2 Chron. 17:10–19). Even heathen
armies did not include women (1 Sam. 4:9–10). The idea
of women serving in combat was used as an object
of ridicule (Nah. 3:13; Is. 19:16; Jer. 51:30). Women and
children were specifically excluded from combat
(Deut. 3:19–20; Deut. 20:13–14; Josh. 1:14–15).

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

This is important to keep in mind when considering
Scripture passages (in this case, specific texts in the Old
Testament) relating specifically to war and combat in
Israel and in the ancient Near East. Clearly, military
practices and attitudes in ancient Israel also reflect
the reality of male-female distinctions rooted in the
order of creation. Throughout the Old Testament, for
example, it is simply taken for granted that fighting in
war is a vocation strictly limited to men. Only males
were counted to go to war (Num. 1:2–3; Deut. 3:18; 2

Whereas Paul urges the Christian husband to love his
wife, Peter (1 Peter 3:7) calls on him to honor his wife

54

51

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

Less clear is how Scripture’s teaching about the order
of creation may be relevant or properly applied to various questions in the left-hand kingdom, since (as noted
earlier) Scripture does not make explicit every implication or application of the order of creation for life in the
civil estate. Here we must be cautious to say neither more
nor less than Scripture itself says, nor expect or insist
that Christians equally committed to the authority of
Scripture will reach exactly the same conclusions about
how the order of creation may or may not apply to such
questions.

• 1 Tim. 2:11–15: Paul again uses the word “submission” in the context of distinctions established
between man and woman in creation. The order
of creation is not invalidated by the fall into sin.
Paul appeals to Genesis 2 and 3 as a basis for order
both in the home and in the church.58 “The Church
does not set aside the order of creation; the Church,
along with the Christian family, should be one of
the (few) places where the order of God’s creation is
still respected, honored, and upheld.”59

Lockwood, 282.
52
Zerbst, 35. “Many modern interpreters try to set the order of
redemption in opposition to the order of creation, and argue that the
two are antithetical or incompatible … . But such a conflict is foreign
to Paul’s theology. Paul sees the two orders as complementary, and
the Christian life is to be lived in obedience and harmony within both
orders.” Lockwood, 376.

As noted above, Paul’s primary concern in these
passages is to show how the order of creation, rooted in
the reality of God’s creative work and will, applies to the
relationship between husband and wife in marriage and
to the question of order in the church, especially with
reference to the pastoral office. With regard to the latter,
the LCMS has consistently held that “those statements
of Scripture which direct women to keep silence in the
church and which prohibit them to teach and to exercise
authority over men [1 Cor. 11 and 14; 1 Tim. 2:11–15], we
understand to mean that women ought not to hold the
pastoral office or serve in any other capacity involving
the distinctive functions of this office” (1969 Res. 2-17).

The “mutual submission” spoken of in Eph. 5:21,
emphasizes the CTCR, “must not be interpreted to
mean that there ceases to be hierarchy within marriage.
The call to mutual service presupposes that an ordered
relationship between husband and wife exists. Under the
principle of mutual service, however, hierarchy within
marriage is viewed not as a political relationship of the
ruler over the ruled but as an arrangement whereby
the welfare of the other may be served. The Christian
husband will therefore understand that the position of
headship has been entrusted to him for the exercise of
sacrificial love toward his wife … The Christian wife will
understand that, in requiring that she be subject to her
husband, God has put her in a position of supporting
her husband in his responsibility to care for those who
belong to his household. Such a relationship, which cannot be equated simply with obedience, carries with it the
honor of accepting a role which the Son of God Himself
assumed before His Father (1 Cor. 15:28).”57

Similarly, in commenting on Ephesians 5 in its report
on Human Sexuality, the CTCR says: “As the church’s
47
“By the expression ‘nature itself ’ (1 Cor. 11:14) Paul means ‘the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in
us, especially with respect to sexuality.’ This sense has been implanted
since creation, although it has become obscured and is not always
reliable because of the fall into sin. Just as nature teaches (11:14) men
instinctively to shrink away from doing what our culture labels as
feminine, so it teaches women to dress and behave in distinctively
feminine ways.” Lockwood, 376–377. “The created distinction between
man and woman should be honored in the church … . We are not
disembodied spirits; consequently, spiritual maturity in Christ will
lead us to become mature women and men in Christ. Our dress and
outward appearance should appropriately reflect our gender identity; to
blur these distinctions is to bring needless shame upon the community.
In a time of rampant confusion about gender identity in our culture,
Paul’s teaching on this matter is timely for us. A healthy community
needs men and women together (v. 11), not a group of people striving
for sexless neutrality.” Lockwood, 378–379.

and regard her “as a fellow heir of the grace of life.”60 A
husband is to live with his wife as “the weaker vessel.”61

See, for example, Trent C. Butler, Word Biblical Commentary: Judges
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 98–109.

64

Also, when Abimelech realized that he was fatally injured by a woman, he commanded his armor-bearer to kill him with his sword so he
would not die at a woman’s hand.
65

PART 2

CTCR, Human Sexuality, 29.

57

Ibid.

60
“It is a much higher thing to honor than to love. Honor includes not
only love, but also deference, humility, and modesty directed (so to
speak) toward a majesty concealed within them.” Luther’s Large Catechism, KW, 401.106–107.

Zerbst, 53–54. See also R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1966), 562–574, and Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P.
Griffin Jr., The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 100–101.

58

61
“Because the pagan culture allowed for abuse of wives and her rights
were reduced due to the fact that they were not as strong as men, Peter
discourages any such exploitation. Christian knowledge will accord
the wife all the consideration and thoughtfulness which God intends
for one redeemed by Christ.” (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the
Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), 139. Referring to wives as “the weaker vessel” is
not a derogatory phrase, but is a reference only to the relative difference
between men and women in terms of size and muscular strength. See
Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 122–123, and I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 103–104.

59
Charles A. Gieschen, “Ordained Proclaimers or Quiet Learners?
Women in Worship in Light of 1 Timothy 2,” in Women Pastors? The
Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, Matthew C. Harrison and John T. Pless, eds. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
2009), 84. Gieschen goes on to discuss the meaning of “saved through
child-bearing”: “The historical context points to the probability that
Paul is affirming childbearing as an important role in women through
these words … as an important God-ordained role of women established in creation that is not set aside through redemption.” Ibid., 86.

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

|

Resolved, That due to deep and widespread
concern among many members of the LCMS
— rooted in biblical convictions, historic
understandings of natural law, and reason-based
common sense — about the negative impact
of the conscription of women on individual
consciences, marriages, families, and society as a
whole, the LCMS in convention strongly oppose
any legal action that forces the compulsory
service of women in the military, also called
the conscription of women, by mandatory
participation in Selective Service registration, a
draft, or by any other mechanism.

12

As 2016 Res. 5-11A rightly observes, reason and
natural law recognize physical, hormonal and emotional
distinctions between men and women. On average,
males have greater physical strength than females,
particularly upper body strength. Additionally, due
to differing hormonal concentrations, males typically
have higher aggression levels, and females have greater
tendencies toward nurturing, supporting others and
developing or building relationships. Furthermore,
some men may have protective attitudes toward women
that could cause unit and mission risk if women are
involved in combat units. Studies have shown that
all-male combat units perform significantly better than
integrated combat units. They also reveal that women
have significantly higher attrition rates due to injuries in
combat-related situations.

11

Most importantly, reason and natural law recognize
that the family is foundational to society. Mothers are
most often the primary nurturers of children. The military itself recognizes and acknowledges the unique and
critical nature of this role by making special provisions
for servicewomen who become pregnant.
The evidence summarized above from both the Old
and the New Testament regarding male-female distinctions within the order of creation, supported by evidence
from natural law and human reason, serves as a strong
basis for explaining why and how “biblical arguments
against women serving in combat positions have been
marshaled by many Christians, including members
of the LCMS, who strongly object to the Department
of Defense’s decision, such arguments being based on
specific texts (Gen. 1–2, Deut. 22:5, and Eph. 5:25)” (2013
Res. 2-12A). It is the conclusion of the CTCR that the
cumulative weight of the Bible passages and principles
discussed above can legitimately be read by Christians
to the effect that it is not in keeping with God’s created
design, intention and will for women to be employed in
military combat or to be compelled to serve in the military
in any capacity. The CTCR here affirms its support of
the Synod’s position that “due to deep and widespread
concern among many members of the LCMS — rooted in biblical convictions, historic understandings of
natural law, and reason-based common sense — about

66
documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html. Some have held up as a contrary example
the conscription of women and their use in combat by the Israeli
military forces. However, it is only recently that they have been used in
combat roles, and that has been restricted to two border patrol units.
Consider the following: washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/
womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/; nationalreview.
com/article/431239/israel-women-combat-experience-not-what-left-says;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces; msn.com/
en-us/news/world/why-a-growing-number-of-religious-women-want-toserve-in-the-israeli-military/ar-BBENRPp?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp.

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

PART 2

Reason and natural law recognize that when young
men and women are in close proximity for extended
periods of time, sexual relationships and tensions are
inevitable. This can have a decidedly negative impact
upon unit order and cohesion. Due to the increasing
number of women serving in military units involving
close-quarter habitation, there has also been an increase
in cases and charges of sexual abuse.67 Furthermore,
there is a markedly negative impact on military units
when pregnancies occur. Women who become pregnant
are immediately removed from naval vessels and units
serving in combat zones. These military units are then
left short-handed without replacements, sometimes for
several months.

While the death of any soldier is deeply tragic, and
while both fathers and mothers play a crucial role in the
family, reason and natural law recognize the likelihood
(even certainty) that the loss of significant numbers of
women in combat would negatively affect the morale
not only of soldiers and the military but of society as a
whole. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the witness
of world cultures, both ancient and modern, is almost
unanimous in maintaining a prohibition against women
serving in combat.66

The “Whereas” quoted above notes the relevance of
human reason and natural law to the issue of women
being employed in combat; the second “Resolved” of
Res. 5-11A applies these same principles to the issue of
conscription:

|

56

67
The prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse of women in the military is an undeniable and deeply regrettable reality. A 2014 Rand study
found that roughly 5 percent of all military women had been sexually
assaulted in the previous year and 22 percent experienced sexual harassment. Women were far more often assaulted or harassed than men.
See rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9841.html. The DoD’s most recent
report on sexual assault, for the year 2016, indicated a slight decrease
in sexual assault against women, as 4.3 percent of military women
reported a sexual assault in that year. See sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/
FY16_Annual/FY16_Annual_Report_FactSheet_4_Aug_17.pdf.

|

PART 2

13