# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S219
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
The Missouri Synod’s official treatment of the order of creation may be summarized thusly: The concept was
officially adopted in 1956 in declining proposals for women’s suffrage; its use shifted beginning in 1968–1970
to safeguard the biblical proscription of women assuming the pastoral office or its distinctive functions, before
becoming a subject of debate over the role of women in church governance in the 1990s and finally the role of women
in society more generally in the 2010s. Questions about the precise definition of this term and its specific applications
and implications would then lead to the 2016 resolution precipitating the current report.

III. Defining the Order of Creation
The concept of the order of creation is indeed found in the Scriptures; in the writings of Luther and subsequent
Lutheran theologians; and in reports, resolutions and statements about its specific use and application in the Missouri
Synod. Nonetheless, a completely clear and exact definition of the order of creation or its corollary, the order of redemption has remained elusive. For instance, the 1956 report proposing the order of creation as the basis for refusing
women’s suffrage defined the concept this way:
Order of Creation designates the particular position which by the will of the Creator any created object
occupies in relation to others. Thus man has a position in creation different from that of all other animate and
all inanimate creatures (GENESIS 1). On the level of life in this world husband and wife, parents and children, have
their own assigned position in relation to each other (Table of Duties). The triad Father-Mother-Child is one that
even atheistic evolutionists cannot escape, although they believe neither in Creation nor in Redemption. This
triangular relationship belongs to the very structure of existence.69
By contrast with what the report later calls these “horizontal, earthly relations” of the order of creation, it defines
the order of redemption this way: “Order of redemption is employed to denote the relationship of man to God in the
new life established by God the Redeemer and Sanctifier.”70
This bears comparison to the definition given in the CTCR’s 1985 report Women in the Church. The 1985 report
treats the order of creation almost identically with the 1956 convention report: “This [order of creation] refers to
the particular position which, by the will of God, any created object occupies in relation to others. God has given
to that which has been created a certain definite order which, because it has been created by Him, is the expression
of his immutable will. These relationships belong to the very structure of created existence.”71 However, the report’s
definition of the order of redemption departs in one important way from its 1956 precursor, as the term “refers to
the relationship of the redeemed to God and to each other [italics added] in the new creation established by Him in
Jesus Christ (GAL. 6:15; 2 COR. 5:17). This new creation constitutes participation in a new existence, in the new world that
has come in Christ. It is a relationship determined by grace.”72 The simple interpolation of the words “and to each
other” changes the distinct historical-vertical axes of the 1956 report. It in turn introduces a degree of ambiguity into
the question of precisely how the order of redemption relates to the order of creation. In what ways does the order of
redemption govern the relationships between Christians differently than the order of creation does? The report states
that the order of creation establishes “individual identities to each sex,” and that they are not “interchangeable,” but
must “remain distinct.” But are there now two types of relationships between men and women in the church — those
governed by the order of creation and those governed by the order of redemption? How are we to know which one
applies, apart from the prohibition of women serving in the pastoral office? Moreover, does the order of redemption
have any implication for the roles of women in relation to men within society, politics or domestic life?

A further ambiguity was introduced with the term “order of preservation,” used by both the 1968 CTCR report
on women’s suffrage and the 1970 CCM guidelines for women in congregational and Synod offices, albeit without
definition. In both cases, “order of preservation” appears as a synonym for “order of creation,” yet that is not how
the order of preservation had been used in prior theological discussion. Preservation applied to the postlapsarian
condition — how relationships within marriage, for instance, existed despite the impact of the fall and the damage
it caused. Thus, one might reject the order of creation’s relevance entirely in deference to the order of preservation,
through which God continued governing a fallen society. Is the order of preservation different from the order of
creation? Is it merely a way of expressing how the order of creation operates after the fall? If the order of preservation
is entirely distinct, how might it help us better understand the consequences of the fall for what God instituted
perfectly at creation or how we should apply the order of creation in a fallen world?
Lastly, there remains a question of how the order of creation relates to natural law.73 At times, the order of creation
has been viewed as a close parallel to natural law, or the law written on human hearts.74 However, the single figure
most influential for the Missouri Synod’s formal incorporation of the language of order of creation, Fritz Zerbst,
explicitly denied that natural law was to be viewed as synonymous with the order of creation. Rather, he saw them as
complementary concepts — natural law for the broader society originating in human nature, order of creation for the
Christian originating in Holy Scripture.75 Are natural law and the order of creation the same? If they are different, and
if natural law is accessible to all, but the order of creation is strictly revealed by God’s Word, how does this distinction
impact the way we can apply it beyond the Christian church and home? How might this affect the way we talk about
the ecclesiastical or domestic applications of male headship versus possible social or political applications?
While the order of creation has clear theological, historical and denominational precedents, it has lacked a clear
and precise definition. The same is true for the order of redemption (and the order of preservation). The evolving use,
differing descriptions and repeated resolutions appealing to the order of creation on divisive matters have only exacerbated the ambiguity already implicit in terms that have lacked clear and consistent definitions. Without agreed-upon definitions for these terms, members of the Synod continue to talk past one another. For this reason, we offer
below definitions of the order of creation and order of redemption that we believe are consonant with what the Synod
and the CTCR have said in the past (rooted in Scripture, Luther and subsequent Lutheran theology). We do so in
the hope of clarifying what we mean when we talk about these orders and facilitating continued fraternal discussion
about the implications and applications of these orders for our life today in home, church and society.
• Order of Creation: The set of relationships among all created things that God has instituted in His creation. These
natural relationships assume orderliness, with God entrusting to some responsibilities that involve the benevolent exercise of authority in their relationship with others — husbands in relationship to wives, parents to
children, civil authorities to subordinates, humans to animals and vegetation — and in turn subordinating some
to others (GEN. 1:29, 2:15; EX. 20:21; ROM. 13:1–7; 1 COR. 11:3). The fall into sin has damaged the order of creation, including
our perception and application of it (GEN. 3:16–19; 1 TIM. 2:13). Scripture is not definitive about its future in the new
heavens and new earth. Nonetheless, its affirmation by Christians supports male headship and female submission in ways Scripture makes explicit for relationships within the Christian home and within the church (1 COR.
11:7–9; 14:33B–35; 1 TIM. 2:11–13).

73
On natural law, see CTCR, The Natural Knowledge of God in Christian Confession and Christian Witness (St. Louis; The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2013),
28–32.
74

69

1956 Proceedings, 566.

70

1956 Proceedings, 566.

71

CTCR, Women in the Church, 21.

72

CTCR, Women in the Church, 21.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

219

CTCR, Women and Military Service, 12–16, seeks to keep natural and human reason distinct from the order of creation, but never fully defines the respective terms.

75
“The will of the Creator concerning marriage and the relation between husband and wife must, however, not be confused or identified with natural law. Natural
law proceeds from possibilities inherent in man, from his ‘nature,’ from biological facts, and the like. Natural law can serve as a basis for the temporary establishment
of definite sociological structures for human life. Theology, however, always operates with the will of the Creator as the deciding factor and is, therefore, essentially
concerned with the ethical side. Because of this the New Testament indeed demands no change of the social order, but it does call for a change in the ethical behavior
of human beings. Natural law knows nothing of accountability unto God, and it has, therefore, led to the most varied solutions of the question concerning the sexes.
For the Christian, however, the all-important factor is the one will of the divine Creator, according to which there is only one fundamental order, though this order may
under various social circumstances assume various forms. Whereas this fundamental order has its origin in the will of the divine Creator, the affairs of men point in
manifold ways to this order and express it in marriage laws, in the possibility of finding a place for both man and woman in the political economy, and in other ways.
Thus natural law sees effects, but not the cause; and vice-versa, theology must look from the Cause or Author to the creatural facts” (Zerbst, Office of Woman, 111f).

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

15

• Order of Redemption: The set of relationships between all created things and God, which God has effected
through the life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While this redemption has certain implications
for all creation, it principally concerns the standing of fallen humanity before God as a consequence of saving
faith in Christ and with the hope for a restored, renewed creation in the life and world to come (GAL. 3:26–28;
1 COR. 12:13; 1 PETER 2:9–10). This order of redemption does not abrogate the order of creation yet points beyond it to
the consummation of God’s eternal plan for salvation (2 COR. 5:1–5; REV. 21:1–7). Through regeneration by the Spirit
and obedience to the Holy Scriptures under this order of redemption, Christians are able by faith to better
understand the order God has established in creation and to live out their vocations in the world in a way that
embodies that order, albeit incompletely and imperfectly (EPH. 5:22–33; 1 PETER 2:13–3:7).76

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

16

design, with interactive and inter-dependent rhyme and reason, which informed how they were to live in accordance
with that divinely designed intentionality. We can no longer assume that most people — even Christians — hold
this worldview in 21st-century American culture. Thus, it is all the more imperative that we as Lutherans, who
confess unreservedly the authority of Holy Scripture, likewise affirm the God who reveals himself as Creator in Holy
Scripture and what Scripture says about the implications of His created order and design for how we live in a sinful
world that does not share those assumptions. The relevance of the order of creation for us, then, has not only to
do with the practical applications we draw from it, but more importantly with the theological beliefs it reflects. As
20th-century German Lutheran theologian Peter Brunner once stated in the context of the controversy of his day
over the ordination of women:
Above all else, we must take into account the theological doctrine of the sexual difference between man and
woman. It is extremely necessary for the church to interpret the natural state doctrinally if she wants to present
the message of the New Testament in a relevant fashion. She cannot be satisfied to borrow the insights of biology,
psychology, philosophy, sociology, or medicine. Texts such as Eph. 5:22–23, Col. 3:18ff, and 1 Peter 3:1–7 show
that the church must say something about what it means to be man or woman before God; it must say something
that can be said by no one else in the world, because what it says is said in the light of this understanding of
the Gospel. How is this to be said? What must be its content? It is my opinion that the question whether or not
women should be ordained to the ministry depends on the theological doctrine of the nature and relationship
between the God-given sexes.78

IV. Concluding Remarks
Since 1956, the concept of the order of creation has proven somewhat controversial and, at times, poorly defined,
with different interpretations arising from different circumstances. The central concerns over the order of creation,
however, have largely revolved around practical applications. What roles may women occupy in the church? What
positions and offices are reserved exclusively for men? How should the practice of the church reflect what God has
instituted in creation? What, if anything, can we say on the basis of Scripture about how the order of creation applies
in the civil sphere? The Synod has over time, after extensive study and discussion, changed its stance on certain of
these practical applications under the auspices of Christian liberty. Despite these varied practical applications, the
Synod has maintained a basic, consistent consensus that resists polarized opinions on matters where Scripture has
not expressly spoken. It was in this spirit that the 2016 LCMS convention, in the same resolution requesting this
report, identified three specific areas where the order of creation does come to bear on matters of church practice:
(1) “That the term ‘elder,’ in view of the use of this term in the Scriptures, in the history of the church, and in the
Synod’s history, be reserved for that humanly instituted office in the congregation which has as its assigned duty
the assisting of the pastor in the public exercise of the distinctive functions of this office” (i.e., Office of the Public
Ministry);
(2) “That lay assistance in the distribution of the elements in the celebration of Holy Communion, in order ‘to
avoid confusion regarding the office of the public ministry and to avoid giving offense to the church,’ [1989 Res.
3-10] be limited to lay men”; and
(3) “That, while situations exist in which the service of women in leadership positions in the congregation is
desirable or even necessary, men be encouraged to continue to exercise leadership in their congregations even as
they are encouraged to exercise their God-given leadership in a God-pleasing manner in their homes.”77
These positions did little more than reiterate what the Synod had said since 1969. Though reasoned disagreement
may exist on the consequences of the order of creation for church structure or governance, Scripture’s teaching
regarding the order of creation clearly rules out the ordination of women or their service in ways that may be
confused with the pastoral office or involve the performance of its distinctive responsibilities.

In short, what we say about the order of creation is a consequence of what we believe about the God who ordained
it at creation. The order of creation is not strictly or even primarily about certain “rules” or “guidelines” for how we
live or who may do what in the church. It is finally about the Creator and Lord, how He has made us as His creation,
and how what we believe about this creation reflects what we believe about the Creator who made it.
To affirm the order of creation, then, is not simply to affirm and uphold specific practical applications (though
those are real consequences and worth consideration). To affirm the order of creation is to join together in a bold
theological confession of God as creator and us as His creation. The order of creation confesses that God alone is the
creator of all things that exist, and He made them out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). The order of creation confesses
the goodness of God’s creation, that everything He has made is fundamentally “good,” as Genesis 1 reiterates time and
again, and is not to be discarded or regarded as worthless by us. The order of creation confesses that God has made all
of humanity, all of humanity bears His image, and therefore all of human life is to be valued and protected. The order
of creation confesses that God has made humans male and female and for them alone has instituted marriage, that
in the indissoluble bonds of matrimony we might care for the earth and populate it. A rightly understood concept of
the order of creation can only help us confess in a consistent, unified way, among other things, the biblical qualifications and distinctive functions of the pastoral office; God’s natural design for marriage and sexuality; and the marked
contrast between the church and an increasingly secularized society when it comes to living in accordance with how
God has created us. This report has sought to clarify our historic understanding of the order of creation through a
biblically and theologically informed study, so that ultimately, we might know its foundations better, explain it more
coherently and teach it more faithfully in accordance with Holy Scripture.

Whatever questions (even disagreements) may continue to exist over certain practical applications of the order of
creation, these ought not, in our view, prevent us from seeing and affirming the principal benefit of this theological
concept for the church. St. Paul indeed saw a direct relevance of the order of creation for specific areas of church
practice, in particular preaching, teaching and conduct of worship in the Christian church, as well as spiritual
headship in the Christian home. Yet he articulates these positions to Christians sharing the same fundamental
biblical worldview as his, with its affirmation of an eternal Creator God who made all things with order, beauty and
76
This report has focused largely on the biblical, theological and historical foundations of the order of creation, not the order of redemption. The definition here draws
upon that given in the 1956 report of the Committee on Woman Suffrage and the 1968 CTCR report on Woman Suffrage in the Church cited above. The reader is
referred to those sources for further explanation.
77

2016 Proceedings, 163.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

78

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

17

Brunner, Ministry and the Ministry of Women, 13.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

2023 Convention Workbook

18