LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 183

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

office (preaching in or serving as the leader of the public worship service, the public administration of
the sacraments, the public exercise of church discipline).”
The CTCR also appreciates the reminder in this section that this sample paragraph is intended for use
only by congregations “that wish to permit women to hold all congregational offices that are not directly
involved in carrying out specific functions of the pastoral office or in public accountability for the
functioning of this office.” As with the Synod position on woman suffrage (1969 Res. 2‐17), no
congregation in the Synod is “forced” by 2004 Res. 3‐08A (or by any other resolution of the Synod) to
permit women to hold any particular congregational office. Congregations of the Synod retain the
freedom to decide which congregational offices they wish to limit to their male voting members.
In addressing “Concerns Regarding Woman Suffrage” in 1995 Res. 3‐05 (see attached, Appendix D), the
Synod officially declared “that honest Christian conscience can and does exist on both sides of this issue,
but such difference of opinion is not divisive of Christian fellowship.” The same is true, the CTCR
believes, with regard to 2004 Res. 3‐08A and the matter of women serving in humanly‐established
congregational offices “that are not directly involved in carrying out the specific functions of the pastoral
office or in public accountability for the functioning of this office.” Therefore, the CTCR also affirms in
this context the Synod’s appeal in 1995 Res. 3‐05 “that the 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.”
Finally, the CTCR notes that there is a certain ambiguity (seemingly an intentional ambiguity) in the
language used in this section (and in 2004 Res. 3‐08A itself) which speaks of congregational offices “that
are not directly involved in carrying out specific functions of the pastoral office or in public
accountability for the functioning of this office” (emphasis added; cf. 2004 Res. 3‐08A, “official functions
[that] would involve public accountability for the function of the pastoral office”). The Synod has not
provided an official “list” of congregational offices that do or do not inherently or necessarily involve
“public accountability for the functioning of the pastoral office.” Since congregations are granted
considerable freedom by the Synod to determine which congregational offices they wish to include or
not include as part of their polity and how they wish to delimit or delineate the functions of those who
hold these offices, it would be virtually impossible for the Synod (within the framework of its own
official polity) to create such a “list.” (See the “Recommendations” section below, however, with regard
to the office of “elder.”)
This means, of course, that some congregations of the Synod may “define” certain offices and their
accompanying responsibilities (e.g., president, vice‐president, etc.) differently than others, which may
well result in different conclusions about the possibility of women holding these offices.3 Even when
congregations define the same office in virtually identical ways, they may well have different
understandings of whether or not the functions of this office “involve public accountability for the
function of the pastoral office” (e.g., to what extent is the President of a congregation “publicly
accountable for the function of the pastoral office?”). This certainly involves an “inconsistency” in
congregational polity, and (potentially) in practice. The critical question is whether it also involves an
inconsistency in doctrine that is (at least potentially) “divisive of fellowship.” Here again, the CTCR
believes that the parallel to the Synod’s position and practice on the issue of woman suffrage is valid

and applicable—together with the affirmation of the Synod in 1995 Res. 3‐05 that such differences of
opinion and practice are “not divisive of Christian fellowship” but rather call for the “exercise of
Christian love and patience” (cf. the comments below on the section titled “A Concluding Word”).
“Recommendations” (pages 21‐22)
The CTCR affirms the recommendation given here regarding the congregational office of “elder,” the
recommendation regarding lay assistance in the distribution of the elements in the celebration of Holy
Communion, and the encouragement to men to exercise leadership in their congregations in a way that
parallels God‐pleasing leadership of men in the home. These recommendations are consistent with the
Scriptural and Confessional principles summarized earlier in the document, previously adopted
resolutions of the Synod, and past reports and opinions of the CTCR. (In connection with the
encouragement to men to exercise leadership in church and home , the CTCR calls attention to its 2004
opinion which is included as Appendix B in the 2005 Guidelines document, and especially the sections in
that opinion on “Edifying Decisions in Matters of Adiaphora” and “Supporting the God‐Given Family
Structure.”) Congregations and districts of the Synod are urged to abide by these recommendations out
of Christian love and charity and for the sake of our walking together in the Synod.
“A Concluding Word” (pages 22‐23)
Finally, the CTCR strongly commends to the Synod the concluding section of the 2005 document with its
emphasis on respecting “the consciences of others,” acting in a spirit of love and charity, avoiding the
giving of unnecessary offense, consulting with neighboring LCMS congregations before changes in
practice are implemented, and not limiting study and discussion of the Biblical (and blessing‐filled!)
relationship between man and woman to casuistic questions about the “eligibility” of women to carry
out certain “functions” within the official congregational structures of the church. In this connection, the
CTCR encourages continuing study and discussion of its more “full‐bodied” treatment of the relationship
of man and woman in The Creator’s Tapestry: Scriptural Perspectives on Man‐Woman Relationships in
Marriage and the Church (cf. the reference to this document in President Harrison’s request), with its
reminder that “the Commission intends to continue the work done here by providing additional
resources to address specific areas of concern under the general topic of ‘Man and Woman in the
Contemporary World’” (4).
The CTCR also joins President Harrison in “affirming and upholding the consecrated service of women in
biblically supported vocations and tasks.” Many Synod resolutions and CTCR documents, such as the
following, have done the same (also note the ongoing work in this area given to the CTCR in 2013 Res. 411A, attached as Appendix E):
The Commission…recommends that congregations encourage all of their members
(male and female, single or married) to exercise their God‐given responsibilities of
service and leadership in their congregations. (April 21, 2004 CTCR opinion on “The
Service of Women;” January 2005 document; page 30)

The issue of the “order of creation,” discussed in the previous section, often plays a significant role when it comes
to different understandings and definitions in this regard—another reason that continuing discussion and
clarification of this issue is needed.

The body of Christ requires that its individual members exercise the wide variety of their
gifts, whether that individual is male or female (1 Cor. 12:7). Therefore our church has
affirmed the calling of women teachers, deaconesses, professors, and missionaries. We
have endorsed such organizations as the Lutheran Women’s Missionary League and the
Women’s Leadership Institute. We have affirmed the freedom of organizations to grant

Page 7 of 9

Page 8 of 9

3

183

women’s suffrage and have opened to women various lay leadership positions in
congregations, districts, and Synod. We have recognized the leadership of women in
business, government, the professions, and other sectors of society.
Such leadership of women is not inconsistent with Scriptural teaching. On the
contrary, it exists in the very context of our church’s life and teaching which upholds and
promulgates the divinely‐ordered responsibility of pastors and husbands. When women
serve in this way they are enhancing the work of the priesthood of all believers, serving
as members of the body of Christ, and not usurping pastoral authority or violating “the
order of creation.” (The Creator’s Tapestry, CTCR, 2009; page 45)
Adopted December 11, 2014
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Page 9 of 9

2016 Convention Workbook