# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 27 31 2026_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

180. Relative Force of 1989 Res. 3-10, 2005 Guidelines, and 2016 Res. 5-14, regarding Man and
Woman in the Church (25-3071)
By an email of August 15, 2025, a member of the Synod, a pastor, requested an opinion on the following
question(s). The commission requested and received input from the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR).
Background: 1989 Res. 3-10, “To Address Questions re: Service of Women in Congregational Offices,”
included, among other actions, the directive: “…that the congregations of the Synod be urged to conform
their practice to [the] counsel [provided by the CTCR in this matter],” namely, that it “strongly recommends
that to avoid confusion regarding the office of the public ministry and to avoid giving offense to the church,
such assistance [with communion distribution] be limited to men.” 1 This is presumed to remain in force.
Synod’s “Task Force Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices” (2005), in their
section on women assisting in the distribution of Holy Communion (pp. 21–22), quote verbatim from 1989
Res. 3-10 the phrases to which the congregations of the Synod were “urge(d) to conform.” 2016 Res. 5-14,
“To Reaffirm Biblical Teaching on Man and Woman in the Church,” also resolved: “That the three specific
recommendations from the 2005 Task Force Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational
Offices (pp. 21–22) be commended to the people of the Synod.”
Question:

Does the “urge to conform” directive from 1989 Res. 3-10—having been adopted by the
Synod and never rescinded—retain its original force and expectation for the congregations
of the Synod, even when re-presented within later documents that are merely
“commended” (e.g., the 2005 Guidelines as commended in 2016 Res. 5-14)? In other
words:
•

Does the act of commending a document in which an adopted and still-in-force
resolution is quoted alter the binding or advisory force of the quoted material?

•

Or does the quoted language retain its original status and effect as adopted by the
Synod in 1989, regardless of the softer term “commend” used in later resolutions?

•

As a result, should congregations continue to be “urged to conform” on the
question of women distributing communion, or are they merely “commended”?
How does the difference between these words affect our action as congregations
of the LCMS?

Opinion:
1989 Res. 3-10 noted a “divergence of opinion in the Synod concerning women serving as
assistants in the distribution of Holy Communion” and that “the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR) has stated in its 1983 report Theology and Practice in the Lord’s Supper (p. 30) and
reaffirmed in the 1985 report Women in the Church that ‘the commission strongly recommends that to avoid
confusion regarding the office of the public ministry and to avoid giving offense to the church, such
assistance be limited to men’ (p. 47).” As does the 2016 resolution, 1989 Res. 3-10 commended 2 the former
CTCR report to the congregations for “study and guidance in this matter” and resolved “that the pastors
and congregations of the Synod be urged to conform their practice to this counsel” (Proceedings, 116). The
language of item 14 in the noted 1983 CTCR report is as follows:

The original form of the question cited 1989 Res. 3-10 as saying “that the congregations of the Synod be strongly
urged to conform their practice to the counsel provided by the CTCR in this matter,” but this is not a quotation but a
paraphrase or conflation of the CTCR’s “strongly recommends” with the convention’s “urge to conform.”
2
Note that the “commendation” language of the first resolve of 1989 Res. 3-10 corresponds exactly to the
“commendation” of the language from 1989 Res. 3-10 in 2016 Res. 5-14. The use of “commendation” language in
the 2016 resolution can hardly, therefore, be understood to diminish the sense of urging in 1989 Res. 3-10, since
these two were already juxtaposed in 1989. Neither does the 2016 resolution conflict in any sense with, or rescind
any part of, the 1989 resolution.
1

CCM Minutes – May 28–31, 2026 – Page 157