LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 181

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

CTCR Review of 2005 Task Force Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices
Executive Summary

The Commission also notes several deficiencies in the 2005 Guidelines, including especially the
following:

The purpose of this document is to respond to President Harrison’s Sept. 12, 2012 request to the CTCR
to “review” 2004 Res. 3‐08A “and particularly the January 2005 document Guidelines for the Service of
Women in Congregational Offices,” with reference to the following specific questions: female
presidents/chairs of congregations and church councils; women leading worship; female elders; women
assisting with Holy Communion, and women leading chapel at our universities.i



The Commission first offers an excursus which seeks to provide further clarification regarding certain
historical and contextual developments and issues related to the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A and the
January 2005 document. The Commission then notes that the 2005 Task Force Guidelines are helpful
(first of all) in that they serve to clarify what the Synod did—and did not do—in adopting Res. 3‐08A at
the 2004 convention. The Synod did not adopt, approve, or affirm the CTCR’s 1994 report The Service of
Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices as such or in its entirety. Rather, it affirmed two specific
conclusions based on this report which are summarized as follows in the second “Resolved” of Res. 308A: 1) “that women may not serve in the office of pastor nor exercise any of its distinctive functions,”
and 2) “that women may serve in humanly established offices in the church as long as the functions of
these offices do not make them eligible to carry out“’ official functions [that] would involve public
accountability for the function of the pastoral office.’”





The second of these conclusions (regarding women serving in humanly established offices) was further
clarified and delimited by the 2005 Guidelines. In that respect, and in its summation, clarification, and
affirmation of the Synod’s position on several other questions related to the service of women in the
church, the Commission finds the 2005 Guidelines to be very helpful. Especially helpful, in the
Commission’s view, are the following clarifications and affirmations:









2004 Res. 3‐08A does not simply “permit women to hold all humanly established congregational
and synodical offices.” Rather, this resolution permits women to hold humanly established
offices only “so long as these offices do not call upon the holders of these offices to ‘perform
those functions that are distinctive to the public exercise of the ministry of Word and
Sacraments’ or to carry out ‘official functions [that] would involve public accountability for the
function of the pastoral office.’”
The term “elder” should 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.
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,” should be limited to lay men (cf. 1989 Res. 3‐10).
Men are encouraged to continue to exercise leadership in their congregations, just as they are
encouraged to exercise their God‐given leadership in the home.
As changes in practice resulting from the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A are considered and/or
implemented, congregations should always act in a spirit of love, caution, and charity,
respecting the consciences of others, and they should consult with neighboring LCMS
congregations before implementing any changes.
The consecrated service of women in biblically supported vocations and tasks is to be
encouraged and upheld.

181

The historical background in the Guidelines document does not do sufficient justice to the
division and disunity caused by the very narrow (52.5%) adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A, which had
the effect of changing the longstanding position of the Synod on a significant and sensitive issue.
Hence, the Commission strongly recommends reconsideration by the Synod (cf. 2010 Res. 8‐23)
of a proposal to revise the bylaws in a way that would require greater consensus when adopting
doctrinal resolutions.
The Guidelines (like 2004 Res. 3‐08A and the CTCR’s 1994 report) do not directly or explicitly
address the issue of the “order of creation” and its relevance for issues relating to the service of
women in the church. This was and is a major concern of those who have expressed dissent
from 2004 Res. 3‐08A, and needs continued careful study and attention (a task to which the
CTCR has explicitly committed itself).
The Guidelines do not sufficiently address the real‐life dilemma of those who may (and/or do)
have conscience‐bound concerns and disagreements with the action of the Synod in 2004 Res.
3‐08A. Here the Commission points by way of illustration and parallel to 1995 Res. 3‐05 and the
helpful and fraternal way that it addresses “concerns regarding women suffrage” by
acknowledging that “honest Christian conscience can and does exist on both sides of this issue”
and that “members of the Synod, with due sensitivity to those for whom change in this area is a
matter of conscience, continue to exercise Christian love and patience in all discussion and
deliberations on this subject.”
Adopted December 12, 2014
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

i
The question of women leading chapel services is not specifically addressed in 2004 Res. 3‐08A or the January
2005 document, but it was addressed in a 1993 opinion of the CTCR which is included with and re‐affirmed by the
Commission in its response to President Harrison (see below). This opinion observes that the general model for
chapel services at our colleges and universities “is very similar to worship in a congregation,” and therefore the
principle that “women should not preach or lead [such] services of worship” applies to these chapel services.

Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2

CTCR Review of 2005 Task Force Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices

Second, the Guidelines document attached to this memo was later published in a larger (January 2005)
document titled The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices With Guidelines for
Congregations [SWCSOGC] that also contained two CTCR documents (the CTCR's 1994 report on The
Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices and the CTCR's April 2004 Opinion on The
Service of Women in Congregational Offices of Executive Director/President or Assistant DirectorlVice
President) as well as the text of 2004 Res. 3‐08A. This has led some to believe that the Guidelines
document was written or approved by the CTCR or even by the Synod in convention. This is not the case.
The Guidelines document was presented to the Synod by a Task Force appointed by the President of the
Synod following the 2004 convention in order “to provide assistance to the members of the Synod who
wish to implement Res. 3‐08A based on the officially adopted position of the Synod on the role of
women in the church” (Jan. 24, 2005 cover memo). Neither the CTCR nor the Synod has acted on or
officially approved the Guidelines document.

Introduction: Request of the Synod President
In a letter dated September 12, 2012 President Matthew Harrison presented the following request to
the CTCR:
We have noted that recent district conventions have passed overtures calling for the
rescinding of Res. 3‐08A (2004), "To Affirm the Conclusions of the 1994 CTCR Report:
The Service of Women in Congregational Offices." I request that the CTCR please review
this resolution, as well as 3‐07 (2007) and particularly the January 2005 document
"Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices," in light of The
Creator's Tapestry and other relevant Synod or CTCR action—all to provide clarity and
direction on the issue of women's service in the church. The questions that arise most
consistently are the issues of: female presidents/chairs of congregations and church
councils; women leading worship; female elders; and women assisting with Holy
Communion. The question of women leading chapel at our universities is also a
persistent area of concern. Please address these questions, while affirming and
upholding the consecrated service of women in biblically supported vocations and tasks.
I find the January 24, 2005 "Memo" very helpful. The commission may simply want to
affirm the "Memo," with some or little alteration, and present it to the Synod.1
We begin with a few observations and comments about the President’s request (and most specifically
about the “January 24, 2005 ‘Memo’” referenced at the end of his request) for purposes of clarification.
First, the “January 24, 2005 ‘Memo’” referenced by the President consists of two items: 1) a cover
memo from Dr. Samuel Nafzger (Executive Director of the CTCR at that time) to the Council of Presidents
(COP), written for the purpose of sharing with the COP a newly prepared Task Force document called
Guidelines for the Service of Women in Congregational Offices; 2) a copy of the Guidelines document
itself, which is attached to the cover memo (see attached, Appendix A). (The Guidelines document was
on the agenda for discussion by the COP at its February 2005 meeting.) Dr. Nafzger’s cover memo is
essentially informational, written for the purpose of introducing and conveying the attached Guidelines
to the COP. Therefore, when President Harrison suggests that “the commission may simply want to
affirm the ‘Memo,’ with some or little alteration, and present it to the Synod,” the CTCR understands his
reference to “the ‘Memo’” to include the attached Guidelines document. There is nothing of substance
to “affirm” in Dr. Nafzger’s cover memo itself, if read apart from the document attached to it and
conveyed by it.
1
The response to this request that follows in this document focuses on the 2005 Guidelines document, which
touches on all the specific questions and concerns noted in President Harrison’s request except the issue of
“women leading chapel at our universities.” This issue is helpfully addressed in a previous (1993) opinion of the
CTCR which is appended to this document and which the Commission continues to affirm (Appendix F). This
opinion observes that the general model for chapel services at our colleges and universities “is very similar to
worship in a congregation,” and therefore the principle that “women should not preach or lead [such] services of
worship” applies to these chapel services.

Page 1 of 9

Third, the Guidelines document itself contains five distinct sections (“Background,” “Scriptural and
Confessional Basis,” “Sample Paragraph for Congregational Constitutions,” “Recommendations,” and “A
Concluding Word”), none of which are specifically titled “Guidelines.” This has proven to be confusing to
some readers in determining exactly what “guidance” is being offered here, and where and how the
document seeks to offer such guidance in the various sections of the document. There is also a preface
at the beginning of the document as a whole that offers some helpful (but necessarily limited and
selective) historical and contextual background.
The CTCR is herewith responding to the September 12, 2012 request of the President, therefore, by
offering a section‐by‐section review of the 2005 Task Force Guidelines document. The CTCR hopes that
this review will be helpful in clarifying the background and purpose of the Guidelines, evaluating the
guidance given in the various sections of this document, and identifying issues raised by the adoption of
2004 Res. 3‐08A that may need further clarification, study, and discussion.2
First, however, the Commission offers the following excursus on certain significant historical and
contextual issues referenced in the document’s prefatory section (pages 3‐4) which are essential for
understanding the Guidelines document and this review of it.
Excursus: Historical and Contextual Developments and Issues
The information provided in the brief preface to the larger January 2005 document (pages 3‐4) is very
helpful for understanding the historical developments of the past 50 years or so within the LCMS that
preceded the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A. These developments include the CTCR’s 1968 report on
woman suffrage, the Synod’s adoption of 1969 Res. 2‐17 “To Grant Woman Suffrage and Board
Membership” (see attached, Appendix B), and the CCM’s 1970 opinion (rendered “by human right
rather than by divine right,” in accordance with the province of the CCM) that women, even if voting
members of the congregation, should not serve in the congregational offices of elder, chairman, or vicechairman (see attached, Appendix C). This opinion of the CCM served as the official (albeit de iure
humano) position of the Synod from 1970 until the adoption of 2004 Res. 3‐08A.
The brief history provided in this preface does not, of course, tell “the whole story.” It is true that “[t]he
2004 synodical convention adopted a resolution [3‐08A] affirming the conclusions of the 1994 CTCR
2

Page numbers in the Guidelines document referenced in this “Review” correspond to the published version of the
Guidelines document referenced in the hyperlink above.

Page 2 of 9

2016 Convention Workbook