# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S399
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

399

2

CTCR Response to Matthew Becker Dissent of 6/29/11
	
  

Becker’s Dissent

this argumentation in more detail. CFPT often describes (and then “dissents
from”) the “position of the Synod” in ways that do not correspond to the actual
position of the Synod or positions set forth in supporting Synod documents (see
point two below). CFPT refers only twice in passing (both times in a parenthetical
comment) to one particular CTCR report on the service of women, without
engaging the theological arguments in that report (or any other CTCR report on
this issue). While CTCR reports do not themselves constitute “the official position
of the Synod,” several of its reports on the service of women are referenced in
significant doctrinal resolutions on this issue. Where this is the case, it seems
reasonable to expect some engagement with the theological argumentation of
these reports and the resolutions themselves.

In correspondence to the CTCR dated June 29, 2011, the Rev. Dr. Matthew Becker, a rostered
and ordained minister of the LCMS, formally expresses his dissent from “the synod’s practice of
restricting the office of pastor only to men” and from “the synod’s position of interpreting the first
two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twentyfour hour days, and that the natural law of evolution must be rejected.” For his dissent on these
issues, Dr. Becker directs the CTCR to two essays he has written, “A Case for Female Pastors
and Theologians” [CFPT] and “The Scandal of the LCMS Mind” [SLM], both of which were
originally published in A Daystar Reader (Portland, Oregon: Daystar.net, 2010), edited by Dr.
Becker.
Synod Bylaws and CTCR Policy on Dissent

Problematic Issues with Becker’s Dissent

Dr. Becker’s dissent regarding creation and evolution also suffers from a lack of
specificity and focus. His letter of June 29 states that he is dissenting from “the
synod’s position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that
God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four hour days”—but this
language has never been used by the Synod in any doctrinal resolution or
statement. SLM begins by offering quotations from the (1932) Brief Statement
and from what is erroneously identified as the (1972) A Statement of Scriptural
and Confessional Principles (throughout SLM Becker confuses A Statement with
its “study version,” which was never adopted by the Synod but rather issued by
the President’s office to facilitate study of A Statement), but focuses most of his
attention on 2004 Res. 2-08A “To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation”
and the CTCR’s 1967 report Creation in Biblical Perspective. He speaks of the
latter as if it were “accepted” as an official doctrinal statement or position of the
Synod (which is not the case—1971 Res. 2-12 simply “receives” this report and
“commends it for reference and guidance” in a way quite typical for CTCR
reports, without elevating it to the status of an official Synod doctrinal statement),
and criticizes the former (2004 Res. 2-08A) primarily for what he sees as its lack
of clarity and its potential to “stifle fruitful learning and scientific exploration in
LCMS high schools and colleges.” The precise nature of his “doctrinal dissent”
from this resolution is difficult to discern. In view of Dr. Becker’s positive
comments about the CTCR’s 1967 report, it would have been helpful for him to
respond in some way to what is perhaps the Synod’s clearest doctrinal resolution
on the subject of creation, 1967 Res. 2-31 “To Reaffirm Our Position on Creation,
Fall, and Related Subjects” (attached).

It is clear to the CTCR that Dr. Becker is, in fact, in dissent from the position of the Synod on the
question of the ordination of women to the pastoral office and on issues related to the Synod’s
stated position on creation and evolution. However, responding to this dissent in a clear and
helpful way is difficult because of several problematic issues in the way this dissent is
presented. While these problematic issues do not ultimately form the theological basis for the
CTCR’s determination regarding Dr. Becker’s dissent (see below), they are significant issues
and they seriously impede the CTCR’s ability to respond to this dissent in a way that might be
helpful to the dissenter and to others who have encountered this dissent.

Finally, the lack of specificity or focus is evident in both CFPT and SLM in that
dispersed throughout both essays are frequent references to what “many in the
LCMS assert” (CFPT, 5), various arguments that are “often made in the LCMS”
(CFPT, 2), the views of “some individuals in the LCMS” and “some members of
the LCMS” (SLM, 2), certain things that “many LCMS Christians have said”
(SLM, 6), the views of various “LCMS interpreters” (SLM, 13), etc.—all of which
are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand (i.e., formal dissent from the
doctrinal position of the Synod) and exacerbate the difficulty of responding to Dr.
Becker’s dissent in a meaningful way.

Regarding “Dissent,” the Synod bylaws (1.8) state the following:
While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the Synod are expected
as part of the life together within the fellowship of the Synod to honor and uphold
the resolutions of the Synod.
Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within
the fellowship of peers and then brought to the attention of the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations before finding expression as an overture to the
convention calling for revision or recision. While the conscience of the dissenter
shall be respected, the consciences of others, as well as the collective will of the
Synod, shall also be respected.
Nowhere do the Synod bylaws specify the nature of a response by the CTCR to dissent brought
to its attention as a result of Bylaw 1.8. The CTCR has, however, developed its own internal
policy for responding to expressions of dissent (see attached). This policy lists several
procedural steps, culminating in “a determination regarding whether or not there is sufficient
basis in the dissent for supporting the dissenter’s(’) claim(s) that the doctrinal position of the
Synod is in need of revision” and “an explanation or presentation of the theological basis for this
determination” (2.d and 2.e; cf. also 3).

1. First, there are problems of specificity or focus. Bylaw 1.8.2 speaks of “dissent
from doctrinal resolutions and statements” (emphasis added). CFPT does not
reference or quote a single resolution or doctrinal statement of the Synod
regarding the service of women in the church. The concern here is not for the
mere technicality of adding a footnote or including a parenthetical reference. The
Synod has adopted dozens of doctrinal resolutions over the years on the service
of women which include specific theological language and a certain kind of
theological argumentation or reference to reports and documents that set forth

4

3
	
  

	
  
2. Second, and to some extent related to the first, there are serious problems with
the content of Dr. Becker’s dissent on these issues. We limit ourselves here to an
illustrative (yet significant) example. CFPT refers repeatedly to “the LCMS ‘orderof-creation’ argument,” although it does so without reference to any LCMS
doctrinal resolution or statement, or any theological documentation from official
LCMS sources of any kind. It then characterizes “the LCMS ‘order-of-creation’
argument” in any number of ways that are not consistent with what the LCMS
itself has said in its official resolutions, statements, or theological documents. For
example, CFPT depicts the “LCMS ‘order of creation’ argument” as having
primarily to do with the “order” (the “chronological sequence”) in which God
created Adam and Eve. It speaks of the LCMS “notion that God’s order means
that women are subordinate to men in that created order” and that “this ordering
means that women cannot serve in the pastoral office because such service
would put them in a position of authority over men.” The Synod’s foundational
resolution on this issue, however (1969 Res. 2-17), does not argue in this way. It
does not begin with some “notion” of an “order of creation” which subordinates all
women to men and to male authority, with the result that women cannot hold the
pastoral office merely because this would involve them in a “position of authority
over men.” Rather, this resolution begins with a clear and simple (and restrained)
statement about the Synod’s understanding of specific passages of Scripture:
“Those statements of Scripture which direct women to keep silent in the church
and which prohibit them to teach and to exercise authority over men, 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.” In other
words, says the Synod, the Scriptural prohibitions against women “teaching” and
“exercising authority” are not to be applied indiscriminately to “any and all
teaching” done by women or “any and all authority” exercised by women, but
they have specific reference to “the pastoral office” and service in the church
“involving the distinctive functions of this office.” Numerous CTCR documents
(including the 1968 report Woman Suffrage in the Church, which provided the
basic theological rationale for 1969 Res. 2-17) offer further commentary on these
and related exegetical issues and on the broader issue of the “order of creation”
(which is never presented narrowly in LCMS documents as a mere matter of
“chronological sequence”). It is very difficult to respond helpfully to an expression
of dissent that does not engage the actual arguments that the Synod has made
in its doctrinal resolutions and theological documents and instead engages in
arguments against undocumented characterizations and even caricatures of the
Synod’s position, such as Dr. Becker does in the following:
If the LCMS truly applied the texts consistently, it would not only
prohibit women from serving as pastors and theologians, but it
would teach that women are more prone to temptation by Satan
because they are the weaker sex, that women should remain
silent in the churches, and that they will be saved by giving birth to
children. The LCMS would also teach women to keep their heads
covered in public and during the divine service so as not to offend
the angels. The LCMS would teach women to keep their hair long
and free of braids and not to wear expensive clothes or jewelry.
To be fully consistent, the synod would have to teach that no
women may serve in authority over a man anywhere, in the
church or in society, since this is “an order of the Creator” that is in
the very structure of creation. How would such teaching be
generally received in a culture far different from the apostles, a
culture in which women regularly serve as judges, legislators,
presidential candidates, company CEOs, professors, surgeons,
airline pilots, military officers? (CFPT, 6)

The lack of focus and specificity in SLM (described above) present the same
difficulties in responding to the specific content of its argumentation.
CTCR Determination and Its Theological Basis
The CTCR takes very seriously the right and responsibility of members of the Synod to express
dissent and its own role in responding to expressions of dissent. The purpose of the section
above is primarily “apologetic” in nature—i.e., to explain, at least in part, the difficulties it
encountered in attempting to “do justice” to Dr. Becker’s dissent and to respond to the various
arguments and opinions he has expressed. Ultimately, however, what is said above by way of
“apology” is not foundational for the following determination by the CTCR:
Dr. Becker’s dissent does not provide a sufficient scriptural or confessional basis to
support his claim that the doctrinal position of the Synod is in need of revision on the
issue of the ordination of women to the pastoral office or on the issue of creation and
evolution.
The theological basis for the CTCR’s determination is the evidence provided in Dr. Becker’s
essays that he is operating on the basis of an understanding of the authority and interpretation
of Scripture that is at odds with the Lutheran Confessions (see, for example, the Preface to The
Book of Concord; FC Ep Summary, 2; FC SD Summary, 9, 20; Ap XXIII, 71; Ap VII, 27; Ap XII,
106, etc.) and the scripturally and confessionally-based position of the Synod as set forth in the
Brief Statement (see paragraphs 1-3) and A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles
(see especially “The Infallibility of Scripture” and “Historical Methods of Interpretation”).
Statements such as the following in Dr. Becker’s essays reflect a view of and approach to
Scripture that are clearly incompatible with the Synod’s doctrinal position on the authority and
interpretation of Holy Scripture:
Those biblical texts that imply the subordination of women to men are the result
of an influence of Aristotle on a pattern of patriarchy found in Hellenistic Judaism
that had been adopted by some early Christians but was not normative in all
places or for later times. While traditional Judaism and some early Christian
writings view the inferior ontology of women as obvious, this was not the
dominant view in early Christianity, especially in the Johannine and Pauline
communities that stressed the Christian mandate to love as Christ loves and that
subordinated traditional patterns of female-male relationships on the basis of
power and authority to a pattern that was based on Christian love and the
dynamic working of the Holy Spirit to equip both men and women for ministry. In
this later view, great importance is put upon mutual service under Christ. Thus,
the views toward women that one finds in Aristotle and Jewish rabbinic thought
seem sharply opposed to a central consequence of the gospel, namely, that “in
Christ there is neither male and [sic] female” (Galatians 3:28). (CFPT, 3)
While some biblical texts suggest such “an ordering” of female subordination to
men, these texts no longer make any sense in contemporary western, scientific
societies. The cosmological foundation on which such an “order of creation”
argument rests has been overturned by knowledge from the natural sciences and
by cultural changes in the west over the past three hundred years. Given the
plethora of data in nature that support the theory of the evolution of human
beings, is it really possible any longer to maintain with theological integrity that a
man (“Adam”) was created “first” and a woman (“Eve”) created “second?” Has
not this traditional view been overturned by physical data and contemporary
scientific investigation of nature and natural history, in a manner similar to what
has taken place in the interpretation of those biblical texts that imply and support
a Ptolemaic, geocentric understanding of the universe? To argue that God

2013 Convention Workbook