# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S218
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

218

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

traditional position of male voters’ meetings as “Scripture-sanctioned and time-tested.”42 It explicitly cites the
distinction between the order of redemption and the order of creation as meriting further attention, while resolving
that all members should study “the God-pleasing place of woman in home and church with renewed diligence and
zeal,” all congregations that practice male voters’ assembly should continue in that practice, and all congregations that
practice women’s suffrage should reconsider their position.43
The question of women’s suffrage would be revisited again between 1968 and 1970, with implications for an
understanding of the order of creation. In 1968, the CTCR published a report on women’s suffrage.44 While the report
repeatedly affirms the distinction between the order of creation and the order of redemption, it does not base its
decision regarding women’s suffrage on the structures of male headship and female submission.45 Instead, it argues
that since Scripture does not address voters’ assemblies at all, then no biblical passage directly forbids women’s
suffrage. If there is no “clear passage” prohibiting it, then the Synod “cannot adopt binding legislation” on the matter.
The relevant New Testament texts deal with “public teaching in the church,” or the pastoral office. Suffrage — whether
it be a male voting or a female voting — does not imply occupying the pastoral office.46 This logic was likewise
applied (generally speaking) to women holding congregational offices.47
The 1968 CTCR report laid the foundation for the adoption of women’s suffrage at the 1969 convention. 1969
Resolution 2-17, “To Grant Women Suffrage and Board Membership,” commended both the CTCR study and the
earlier 1956 report, then resolved that since Scripture does not prohibit suffrage at the congregational or Synod level,
the Synod and its member congregations have freedom to adopt it as they wish — provided that such policies do not
allow women to hold the office of pastor or exercise authority over men. The resolution did cite the order of creation,
but only as prohibiting the holding of certain offices in the church “if this involves women in a violation of the order
of creation.”48 In 1970, the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM), in providing direction to congregations considering the adoption of women’s suffrage, interpreted this resolution to say that women may not serve
as elders, chairs or vice-chairs of the congregation, since such offices are either identified with the functions of the
pastoral ministry (in the case of elders) or may exercise authority over the men (in the case of chairs or vice-chairs).
“[S]uch offices might indeed be in violation of what has been called the order of creation or of preservation.”49 It adds,
however, that this conclusion is reached not by divine right — de iure divino, or Scripture — but by human right — de
iure humano, or practical arrangement — and is thus subject to revision and change. Consequently, the Synod’s use
of the order of creation to prohibit women’s suffrage shifted to prohibiting leadership of women in the church only
where this involved a direct violation of the order of creation, such as when women “hold the pastoral office or serve
in any other capacity involving the distinctive functions of this office” or “when holding any other kind of office or
membership on boards or committees in the institutional structures of a congregation” which necessarily involved
violations of the order of creation.
42
1956 Proceedings, 570. It may seem curious today that women’s suffrage would lead to the adoption of the term order of creation. Opponents of suffrage argued that,
for a woman to vote in the congregational assembly is to exercise a degree of authority over both the pastor and other men in the congregation, and that was certain to
raise questions over how these pivotal New Testament texts are interpreted and applied. In this sense, the debate provided the perfect opportunity to consider whether
there are broader ecclesiastical implications to the Pauline prohibition of woman speaking, teaching or exercising authority in the congregation. Synod, at that time,
found in Zerbst’s use of the order of creation a helpful framework to say that participation in a voters’ assembly runs counter to the way in which God made women and
the way in which He made women to relate to men.

1956 Proceedings, 570. As an indication of gravity of the issue, the convention proceedings expressly indicate that the 10 negative voters were asked to give the Secretary of Synod their reason for voting that way, 1956 Proceedings, 571.
43

When the CTCR was formed in 1962, it absorbed the functions of the standing three-person Committee on Woman Suffrage and thus inherited its task of addressing
this issue in response to repeated requests by Synod (1959 Res. 3-08, 1965 Res. 2-36, 1967 Res. 2-05).
44

45
In several places, the report provides the order of preservation as a synonym for the order of creation. Though entirely undefined in the report, this parallel term also
made its way into the subsequent 1970 Commission on Constitutional Matters opinion (see below).
46
CTCR, Woman Suffrage in the Church (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1968), 10. The Commission did not reject or reinterpret the order of creation to reach its conclusion. Instead, it put forward a positive argument in favor of women’s suffrage by appealing to the democratic notion of franchise, even claiming
that parliamentary procedure itself prevents women from exercising authority over men in the way the New Testament warns.
47

CTCR, Woman Suffrage in the Church, 10–11; note the significant caveats in this discussion.

48

1969 Res. 2-17, Proceedings, 88. Sufficient ambiguity resulted that this would continue to be a point of contention in subsequent decades.

LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters, “Suggestions for Congregational Constitutions or Bylaws Regarding the Privileges of Women (Voting and Holding
Office),” January 22–23, 1970.
49

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

11

In the face of increasing theological and cultural pressures during this pivotal period in American history, the
order of creation took on fresh relevance for the Missouri Synod: It was applied expressly to the question of the
ordination of women. The Missouri Synod had been involved in a theological committee of the Lutheran Council of
the USA, which included representatives of both the American Lutheran Church (ALC, with which the LCMS was
in fellowship, albeit tenuously) and the Lutheran Church of America (LCA), on the topic of women’s ordination.
In 1970, both the ALC and the LCA approved the ordinaton of women, leading to the LCMS’ 1971 objection to the
ALC’s action, its declaration of “fellowship in protest” in 1977, and ultimately its dissolution in 1981.50 The order of
creation and the New Testament texts supporting it provided the Missouri Synod a firm exegetical and theological
basis for rejecting the ordination of women and limiting the pastoral office and its distinctive functions to men.
While disagreement over the order of creation’s implications for the role of women in the life of the congregation or
in church governance would repeatedly arise, the Synod continued to affirm that the order of creation unequivocally
prohibited women from occupying the pastoral office or carrying out its distinctive functions.51
In 1985, the CTCR published a report titled Women in the Church.52 In the report, the CTCR specifically focused
the order of creation on the question of women’s ordination. It affirms that the order of creation also applies to the
relationship between men and women in the church: “Distinctive identities for man and woman in relation to each
other were assigned by God at creation. These identities are not nullified by Christ’s redemption, and they should be
reflected in the church.”53 The report argues that, in the context of the church, male headship and female subordination imply a reciprocal relationship that is maintained “for the sake of orderliness and unity.”54 But it restricts the
ecclesiastical function of this headship and subordination to the question of pastoral ministry and the distinctive
functions of the pastoral office.55
It is in this light that the report lays down a principle regarding the application of the order of creation that
directly reflects the Synod’s position: “The creational pattern of male headship requires that women not hold the
formal position of the authoritative public teaching office in the church, that is, the office of pastor.”56 Further
commenting on the “distinctive functions” of the pastoral office as articulated in 1969, the report identifies four
specific activities: “1) preaching in the services of the congregation; 2) leading the formal public services of worship;
3) the public administration of the sacraments; 4) the public administration of the office of the keys.”57 Ultimately,
Women in the Church affirms the 1956 position of the order of creation yet limits its principal relevance for the
50
For more background to these developments, see Gracia Grindal, “Getting Women Ordained,” Lutheran Quarterly 32 (2018): 281–306; John H.P. Reumann, Ministries
Examined: Laity, Clergy, Women, and Bishops in a Time of Change (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), 78–139; and Raymond Tiemeyer, ed., The Ordination of Women: A
Report Distributed by Authorization of the Church Body Presidents as a Contribution to Further Study, Based on Materials Produced through the Division of Theological
Studies of the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1970).
51
This has been repeatedly stated in a variety of resolutions since, including 1971 Res. 2-04, “To Withhold Ordination of Women to the Pastoral Office”; 1977 Res. 3-15,
“To Reaffirm the Synod’s Position on Women with Reference to the Pastoral Office,”; 1986 Res. 3-10, “To Reaffirm Position of Synod on Ordination of Women”; and
1998 Res. 3-25A, “To Affirm Position of Synod That Only Men May Hold the Pastoral Office.”
52
In the intervening years, there was little direct discussion of the order of creation. The CTCR’s 1981 report, Human Sexuality, had a shorter treatment of the topic
under the rubric of “Headship within Marriage.” It was limited to the “hierarchy of function” (Human Sexuality, 31).
53

CTCR, Women in the Church, 27.

54

CTCR, Women in the Church, 32.

For instance, it argues that the “teaching” and “exercising authority” of 1 Timothy 2 are “intentionally linked,” and do not apply to functions outside the pastoral
office. It is not permissible to apply them abstractly, but both “teaching” and “exercising authority” relate strictly to the specific functions of the pastoral office. CTCR,
Women in the Church, 36.
55

56

THE ORDER OF CREATION

church to the lines laid out from 1968–1970: the pastoral office and the distinctive functions of that pastoral office.
Questions regarding the order of creation would arise again in 1994 with the publication of the CTCR’s Service
of Women in Synodical and Congregational Offices.58 The report utilized the 1970 CCM distinction between de
iure divino and de iure humano to argue that the pastoral office and its functions were divinely instituted by Holy
Scripture, and those functions were to be carried out in accordance with the requirements and prescriptions laid
out by Holy Scripture, including the prohibition of women serving in this way. Other offices established by the
church, however, are ultimately according to human right and without mandate from Scripture. This allows for the
possibility of women holding such humanly instituted offices, provided that doing so does not include performing
the distinctive functions of the pastoral office. The 1994 report made no explicit mention of the order of creation, as
the 1969 resolution had. This led to a dissenting opinion from several members of the CTCR, arguing that the report
did not account for the role of the order of creation in its presentation. In fact, the dissent states, when the report cites
1969 Resolution 2-17, it quotes the statement regarding the prohibition against women carrying out the distinctive
functions of the pastoral office and refers to the allowance that they may hold congregational and Synod office but
does not include the rationale qualifying their holding of such offices: It is prohibited “if this involves women in a
violation of the order of creation.” To the minds of the dissenters, this “violation of the order of creation” is what
precludes women holding certain congregational and Synod leadership positions.59
The Executive Committee of the CTCR subsequently drafted a rejoinder to the dissent. It rejects the notion that
the report failed to include the order of creation as a guiding concept simply because there was no explicit mention of
it, pointing to the order of creation in 1985’s Women in the Church and calling it “the ‘guiding concept’ which informs
this entire report and its argumentation regarding women serving in the church.”60 It also claims that the order of
creation as articulated in the New Testament prohibitions against certain activities of women (as stipulated in 1 COR. 14
or 1 TIM. 2) applies specifically to church and worship contexts. “If those dissenting believe that ‘more general’ applications of the order of creation are mandated by the Scriptures with respect to the service of women in offices brought
into being by the church, what are these specific applications and what is their Scriptural foundation?”61 The CTCR
would continue articulating this same position: that the order of creation primarily pertains to the ordination of men
alone and to male headship in the Christian home due to clear scriptural passages, but its implications for the service
of women in humanly instituted offices of the church is not made explicit by Scripture.
In a 2006 report, the CTCR points out that Scripture clearly teaches the order of creation but not necessarily how
the order of creation applies to certain practical issues. Scripturally speaking, the order of creation relates to the pastoral office (citing 1 COR. 14:33B–35 and 1 TIM. 2:11–15), so the church is bound to affirm that women cannot hold this office or
the responsibilities inherent in it. “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.” But it concludes, “the CTCR also believes, however, that we are bound to Scripture alone as the norm when it
comes to making doctrinal judgments about the specific implications and applications of the order of creation for the
service of women in the church.”62 Thus, the Commission responds that disagreement remains not about the order
of creation as such or about its relation to the pastoral office, but rather how the order of creation should influence
the discussion beyond what Scripture expressly states. A 2014 CTCR report further acknowledges that the order of
creation has not received sufficient attention at times, but adds that the degree to which that sufficiency is determined
may depend upon what one expects from the order of creation:

58
59

The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices (1995 Workbook), 310.
“Dissenting Opinion on Women in Congregational Offices,” 1995 Workbook, 312.

60

“Response to the Dissenting Opinion on The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices,” 1995 Workbook, 315.

61

1995 Workbook, 316.

62

“CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent,” 2007 Workbook, 406.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

2023 Convention Workbook

CTCR, Women in the Church, 37.

57
CTCR, Women in the Church, 42. In light of these distinctive functions, the report raises no objection to women addressing the congregation outside the worship
service in an area of their expertise, holding offices in the congregation, or serving as acolytes and ushers, while it expresses reservation about other instances that may
involve confusion with the pastoral office. In the case of participating in the public services of the church, such as reading the lessons or distribution of the elements in
Holy Communion, the document urges against it. With respect to reading the lessons, the report says, “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” (CTCR, Women in the Church, 45). 1989 Res. 3-14, 1989 Proceedings,
118, cited this same passage, concluding that “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.” It is worth noting, however, that the distinction drawn in Women in the Church and in
this resolution is between pastoral reading and lay reading, not between male reading and female reading. Yet, in both cases, the argument is not made on the basis of
the order of creation, but on the basis of the pastoral office and the distinctive functions reserved to it.

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

12

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.63
On matters where Scripture clearly prohibits a certain practice or directly applies the order of creation to a
concrete situation (as with its application to the pastoral office and its distinctive functions), we must stand firm and
remain united. Where it does not, the CTCR maintained, we have freedom to discuss and debate these matters in
Christian charity without disagreement over questions of application threatening our unity and fellowship.
Two more extensive and recent CTCR reports touch on the topic as well. The 2009 Creator’s Tapestry did not treat
the order of creation at length, but does provide a short clarification of the order of creation’s terminology, conceding that it is not a biblical term strictly speaking and suggesting that “future study of this terminology, its history,
its potential for misunderstanding, and its value as a means of communicating biblical truth effectively may be of
benefit.”64 Despite this caution, it nonetheless proposes that the order of creation should be reflected in the church
and in the home, though it makes no reference to the civil sphere. The 2017 report Women and Military Service: A
Lutheran Perspective includes a short description of the contours of the order of creation and the biblical citations
supporting it. The section begins by asserting the relevance of the order of creation for both marriage and for the
order of the church. It acknowledges that “God’s Word does not make explicit every implication or application of the
order of creation for life in the civil estate,” yet nonetheless emphasizes that the order of creation assumes “essential
realities” for male and female that “remain and must not be ignored or denied,” and that they have import not only
for family and church, but also “other vocations and areas of society.”65 At the same time, it notes that the entrance
of sin into the world has damaged the relations instituted at creation: “It is important to note that sexual distinctions
and roles were not created because of sin but are strained and abused as a result of sin.”66 Moreover, it underscores
the need for restraint in appealing to the order of creation in realms where Scripture does not:
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.67
It is for this reason that the report allows for difference in opinion based upon conscience.68 The report does affirm
the relevance of the order of creation for civil matters yet exercises a degree of restraint by not urging a theological
inference (as opposed to a clear statement of Scripture) upon the consciences of the faithful in a way that may be
unnecessarily divisive of fellowship.
63

CTCR, Review of 2005 Task Force “Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices,” 6.

64

CTCR, Creator’s Tapestry, 52.

65

CTCR, Women and Military Service: A Lutheran Perspective (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2017), 7.

66

CTCR, Women and Military Service, 9.

67

CTCR, Women and Military Service, 11.

While it opposes the conscription of women into the military by appealing to the basic biblical and theological contours of the order of creation, as well as natural law
and human reason, it also allows that, given the “distinction between the two kingdoms, the inherent complexities of biblical interpretation, and the absence of specific
and explicit mandates regarding the service of women in the military,” Christians may “very well support and defend the ‘the informed consciences of women who have
carefully considered their station in life and Holy Scriptures on this issue who wish to voluntarily serve in our nation’s military’ (2016 Res. 5-11A), even when this may
include serving in positions of combat,” Women in Military Service, 14.
68

13

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

14