# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 27 31 2026_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

May women serve as assistants in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper?
While some might argue that assisting the presiding minister in the distribution of the
elements is not necessarily a distinctive function of the pastoral office, 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.
This “distinctive function” language echoes that of 1969 Res. 2-17, “To Grant Women Suffrage and Board
Membership,” which “accepted” the following “declaration” as a “guide”:
1. 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.
1989 Res. 3-10 thus “strongly recommends”—for the stated reason of avoiding “confusion regarding the
office of the public ministry and to avoid giving offense to the church”—to limit those assisting the
presiding minister in distribution of the elements to men. 1989 Res. 3-10 stops short of establishing as a
position of the Synod that women assisting in distributing the Lord’s Supper are engaging in a distinctive
function of the pastoral office. Had it drawn that conclusion, such participation by women would be a
prohibited activity in accordance with the position of the Synod expressed in 1969 Res. 2-17, namely, that
on the basis of definite statements of Scripture women “ought not to hold the pastoral office or serve in any
other capacity involving the distinctive functions of this office.” Neither did it state the opposite conclusion,
that the service of women in this capacity is a definite adiaphoron, a thing neither commanded nor
forbidden. Rather, it urges seriously upon the congregations that—to avoid any confusion or offense about
the practice either being or suggesting such prohibited service—it not be practiced.
With regard to 2016 Res. 5-14, the commission notes from the minutes that the floor committee changed
“be endorsed” to “be commended” in the key fourth resolve, as to the recommendation “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.” This restatement in other words does not alter the force of the strong recommendation
of 1989. At the same time, that recommendation remains just that.
The commission feels a further word clarifying the force of these resolutions may be helpful, as some may
question, on the one hand, how the convention can make a strong recommendation against a practice that
it seems to concede may be adiaphorous, that is, neither commanded nor forbidden by God (FC Ep X 1, FC
SD X 2). Or, on the other hand, if this is simply advice, some may question what value it has. To understand
the constitutionality and the weight of such convention actions, it is necessary to understand the confession
on which the Constitution is based. The Formula of Concord, which is “a true and unadulterated statement
and exposition” (Const. Art. II) of that Word of God that is to govern “all matters of doctrine and
conscience” (Const. Art. VIII C) provides regarding adiaphora:
We believe, teach and confess that the community of God in every place and every time
has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority to change and
decrease or increase ceremonies that are truly adiaphora. They should do this thoughtfully
and without giving offense, in an orderly and appropriate way, whenever it is considered
most profitable, most beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, and the
Church’s edification. Furthermore, we can yield and give in with a good conscience to the
weak in faith in such outward adiaphora. Paul teaches this in Romans 14 and proves it by
example (see Acts 16:3; 21:26; 1 Cor. 9:19). (FC SD X 9; see also 7–8)
It is thus entirely consistent with the Constitution of the Synod for the convention—without elevating
human rules to have supposedly divine authority (ctr. FC SD X 26 and Const. Art. VII C)—to take even a
strong and unqualified advisory stance with regard to its membership on a matter that may be (or even on
CCM Minutes – May 28–31, 2026 – Page 158