# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S76
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

76 SYNODICAL REPORTS

olution 3-05 “To Address Concerns Regarding Woman Suffrage,”
the Synod has again declared that the matter of woman suffrage
lies in the realm of Christian liberty. Accordingly, it urged that that
those “who are convinced that woman’s suffrage does not lie in the
area of Christian freedom but is contrary to the Word of God, be
urged to make use of the established procedures for expression dis-
sent.” The Synod also recognized in this resolution that honest dif-
ferences of Christian conscience exist regarding this issue among
some members of the Synod.

As in all matters of doctrine and practice, it remains the strong
conviction of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
that the Holy Scriptures alone must determine what position the
Synod takes on any given issue. Following a careful study of the
aforementioned dissent and after prayerful consideration of the ar-
guments presented, the Commission has concluded that the dis-
senters have not presented sufficient biblical evidence that would
necessitate a recommendation that the Synod revise its position on
the question of woman suffrage and board membership. The Com-
mission continues to believe that the position of the Synod is
clearly in keeping with what the Scriptures teach regarding the role
of women in the church.

Adopted February 9, 2002

3. Expression of Dissent to Position on Ordination in A Brief
Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod

In a series of letters from April 1999 to May 2001 a pastor of
the Synod expressed dissent to the treatment of ordination in A
Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod
(1932). At its September 2003 meeting the Commission adopted
the following response:

CTCR Response to “Dissent” regarding the Brief Statement’s
Treatment of Ordination

In letters dated April 15, 1999, May 13, 1999, June 11, 1999,
and May 4, 2001, a pastor of the LCMS takes issue with the Brief
Statement’s treatment of ordination, characterizing this disagree-
ment as an “expression of dissent.” In his letter of May 4, 2001 the
pastor summarizes his “dissent” as follows:

My expression of dissent was that I do not believe that the Brief
Statement is correct when it uses paragraph 70 of the Treatise to affirm
that ordination **...is not a divine but a commendable ecclesiastical or-
dinance.” I do not believe that this is what paragraph 70 of the Treatise
teaches. This is my dissent. | believe that the Brief Statement here im-
properly uses Article 70. To be sure, if Article 70 does not affirm this,
that affirmation must then be found elsewhere in the Confessions to
bind one to it. I do not believe that there is any place in the Confessions
where one can deduce or find such an affirmation.

One might question, first of all, whether disagreement regarding
the use of a reference (either to Scripture or the Lutheran Confes-
sions) actually constitutes, in and of itself, “dissent” from the offi-
cial position of the Synod. As C. F. W. Walther says concerning
subscription to the Lutheran Confessions: “An unconditional sub-
scription does not at all imply that it were impossible to improve on
the line of argument employed in the Symbolical Books...The ser-
vant of the Church is not bound to follow the form, the method,
and the process of proof used in the Symbols and to avoid any
other” (“Why Should Our Pastors...Subscribe Unconditionally to
the Symbolical Writings of Our Church,” Concordia Journal 15:3,
p. 275). This principle also applies, of course, to doctrinal state-
ments and resolutions.

It is clear, however, that the pastor believes that his disagree-
ment with the Brief Statement’s usage of Treatise 70 does consti-
tute “an expression of dissent.” In view of his concern, therefore,
the Commission offers the following response.

It would be a fair statement to say that the points at issue in the
Brief Statement and in the Treatise are not identical. Paragraph 70
of the Treatise states: “...in times past the people chose pastors and

2004 Convention Workbook

bishops. Then the bishops of either that church or a neighboring
one came and confirmed the candidate by the laying on of hands.
Ordination was nothing other than such confirmation [Latin: com-
probatio; German: Bestaetigung)’ (Kolb-Wengert, eds., The Book
of Concord, p. 341). At issue in the Treatise is neither the definition
of ordination nor whether it should be employed by the church. In-
stead, the Treatise is dealing with a situation in the mid-1530s
when the Roman Catholic Church had refused to ordain Lutheran
candidates for the ministry. This is already alluded to in the Augs-
burg Confession. Thus the Lutherans are confronted with the ques-
tion, “can we ordain our own pastors” apart from “canonical ordi-
nation” (Apology XIV), that is, apart from bishops. The answer
given by the Treatise is “yes.” In other words, Lutheran pastors
may ordain candidates who have been trained, examined, and
called. Treatise 60-82, “The Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops” is
devoted to demonstrating this very point. Thus Melanchthon ex-
amines the traditional distinction of jurisdiction where presbyters
could perform five sacraments (baptism, mass, confession, mar-
riage, last rites) but only bishops could perform the additional two
(confirmation and ordination). Obviously, this situation raised
questions about whether Lutherans could ordain if they did not
have bishops. So in paragraphs 60-82 Melanchthon argues that
such a distribution of duties between presbyters and bishops is by
human right (ius humanum). Since both possess the same office,
presbyters possess the full authority of the office. As a result, pres-
byters may ordain candidates for the pastoral office.

The point at issue in the Brief Statement appears to be whether
ordination is an act/rite that has been commanded or instituted by
Christ himself. It is taking up this question against the backdrop of
the Roman Catholic understanding of ordination as a sacrament
that imparts an indelible character to the candidate. While the Trea-
tise does not deal with this specific question, paragraph 70 is not at
odds with the Brief Statement’s assertion. The Brief Statement ap-
pears to understand the statements “The common practice of the
church” (par 70) and “ordination was nothing more than such con-
firmation” (par 70) to imply that the practice was something less
than divinely mandated. The translation “nothing more than” in the
latter clause might lead one to conclude that the Reformers dispar-
aged ordination—which, of course, they did not. Hence, a better
translation might be, “ordination was nothing other than such con-
firmation,” which provides a definition of ordination rather than a
value judgment about ordination.

The reformers assumed ordination to be the normal practice of
the church and so Melanchthon defines what it is. That
Melanchthon regarded ordination as the normal practice of the
church is evident from the paragraphs that follow. In response to
the bishops’ refusal to ordain, the Lutherans do not eliminate the
practice—instead, they argue that if bishops will not ordain, then
Lutheran churches (and their pastors) will. Paragraph 72 summa-
rizes the evidence in such a way as to conclude, “when bishops ei-
ther become heretical or are unwilling to ordain (italics added), the
churches are compelled by divine right to ordain pastors and min-
isters for themselves.” The point here, however, has less to do with
the rite of ordination than it does with the contention that churches
cannot be without pastors, that congregations have the right to ob-
tain pastors. In other words, the church “retains the right to choose
and ordain ministers” when bishops refuse to ordain them. Thus,
when the Treatise says that “churches are duty bound before God,
by divine right, to ordain for themselves pastors and teachers,” it is
saying that churches are duty bound before God, by divine right,
to authorize someone to carry out Word and sacrament ministry in
their midst. Call and ordination are the way in which they carry out
this task. ’

Finally, it must be kept in mind that even if one comes to the
conclusion that the Brief Statement cites the Treatise in a way that
is not fully applicable to the point at issue, the Brief Statement does