Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2004 · 62nd Convention, St. Louis › Page 462

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 462

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 front matter 6 front matter 7 front matter 8 front matter 9 front matter 10 front matter 11 front matter 12 front matter 13 front matter 14 front matter 15 front matter 16 front matter 17 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334 Page 335 Page 336 Page 337 Page 338 Page 339 Page 340 Page 341 Page 342 Page 343 Page 344 Page 345 Page 346 Page 347 Page 348 Page 349 Page 350 Page 351 Page 352 Page 353 Page 354 Page 355 Page 356 Page 357 Page 358 Page 359 Page 360 Page 361 Page 362 Page 363 Page 364 Page 365 Page 366 Page 367 Page 368 Page 369 Page 370 Page 371 Page 372 Page 373 Page 374 Page 375 Page 376 Page 377 Page 378 Page 379 Page 380 Page 381 Page 382 Page 383 Page 384 Page 385 Page 386 Page 387 Page 388 Page 389 Page 390 Page 391 Page 392 Page 393 Page 394 Page 395 Page 396 Page 397 Page 398 Page 399 Page 400 Page 401 Page 402 Page 403 Page 404 Page 405 Page 406 Page 407 Page 408 Page 409 Page 410 Page 411 Page 412 Page 413 Page 414 Page 415 Page 416 Page 417 Page 418 Page 419 Page 420 Page 421 Page 422 Page 423 Page 424 Page 425 Page 426 Page 427 Page 428 Page 429 Page 430 Page 431 Page 432 Page 433 Page 434 Page 435 Page 436 Page 437 Page 438 Page 439 Page 440 Page 441 Page 442 Page 443 Page 444 Page 445 Page 446 Page 447 Page 448 Page 449 Page 450 Page 451 Page 452 Page 453 Page 454 Page 455 Page 456 Page 457 Page 458 Page 459 Page 460 Page 461 Page 462 Page 463 Page 464 Page 465 Page 466 Page 467 Page 468 Page 469 Page 470 Page 471 Page 472 Page 473

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

462 OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS

Dissenting Opinion on Women
in Congregational Offices

A. Introduction

When the document The Service of Women in Congregational
and Synodical Offices was adopted by the CTCR at its November
1994 meeting, the undersigned indicated their intention to submit a
minority report. According to the Commission’s informal but de-
tailed guidelines for adopting documents, a minority report must
be considered by the whole commission and, if adopted, published
along with the document itself. Since the majority who voted for
the document decided to publish it in the Reporter before consid-
ering our response, we regretfully conclude that the spirit of the
guidelines has already been broken and we release this Minority
Report for consideration by the church.

We understand that questions concerning our life together in the
church, especially those on “women in the church,” are quite sen-
sitive. One reason for this is that the traditional and historic under-
standing of these issues is not “in tune” with the understandings of
broader, popular culture. This places us into an unfamiliar context
which demands serious theological reflection. Especially now, pa-
tient, earnest thought, rooted in respect for God’s own truth, is crit-
ical. The alternative is haste. The minority is firmly of the opinion
that the Commission has acted in undue haste.

Our concerns are threefold: procedural, historical, and theolog-
ical.

B. Procedural Concerns

The passage of the CTCR Service of Women document occurred
only after a remarkable overriding of the Commission’s own nor-
mal processes. Although the committee under whose auspices the
Report was being prepared (Committee 2) had discussed its con-
tents approximately half way (through the section on Elders and
beginning the discussion on Chairman and Vice-Chairman), it was
determined to hold a consultation on the draft with COP members,
at the request of the COP.'

The consultation with the COP took place in late September,
yet a new updated draft of the Report was not available to CTCR
members, including Committee 2 members, until several days prior
to the November meeting.” At that meeting, in his regular presen-
tation to the CTCR, the President of Synod, A. L. Barry, strongly
urged the Commission not to act in haste in adopting the new Re-
port. He noted that the one year Synod deadline preceding the July
1995 convention for the presentation of a Commission Report had
already passed and that haste would not serve the church. Far from
honoring this reasonable request, however—a request which should
have been honored if only to conform to the CTCR’s own self-un-
derstanding as formally adopted in its Mission Statement (that it
“assists the President of Synod at his request”)*—the Executive
Committee of the CTCR, apart from any discussion with Commit-
tee 2 and without any vote by that committee to bring the docu-
ment to plenary, proceeded to take the document from committee
and present it to the plenary. Furthermore, the Executive Commit-
tee set aside its Tentative Schedule (agenda) sent to members 7-10
days before the November CTCR meeting, cancelled virtually all
normally scheduled individual committee sessions, and scheduled
in their place plenary after plenary (including an extra evening ses-
sion) to work relentlessly on the document as a “committee of the
whole.” Other than a very brief discussion in its April 1994 meet-
ing, this was the only discussion of the Report by plenary. The Re-
port was adopted by a vote of 7-4, four voting members (25%) not
being present. That is, with only seven members voting for the doc-
ument, the “majority” Report was adopted by less than a majority
of the entire sixteen (voting) member Commission.

2004 Convention Workbook

C. Historical Concerns

1. The Report’s Appendix provides a brief overview of the his-
tory of “women in the church” discussions, beginning with the
Synod’s 1969 Resolution 2-17. This summary is important, for here
the CTCR offers its interpretation of what the Synod and the CTCR
itself have said in the past 25 years. This discussion, furthermore,
intends to validate the position of the new Report. But at strategic
points, the Appendix is, unfortunately, misleading, if not wrong.

The Appendix says, “Regarding offices and board membership
the Synod [said in 1969 Res. 2-17]... that women are prohibited
from holding any other kind of office or membership on boards or
committees in the institutional structures of a congregation, only if
such a way of proceeding involves women in a violation of this
principle” (emphasis added). “This principle,” in the context of the
Appendix, is that women ought not be pastors or carry out distinc-
tive functions of the pastoral office. But that is not what the
Synod’s resolution actually said. In addition to making the point
concerning the pastoral office, Res. 2-17 also said that the service
of women on boards, etc., should not violate “the order of cre-
ation.” This is an important inaccuracy in the account, for charac-
teristic of the Report is its refusal to include the order of creation as
a guiding concept in its argument. Indeed, Res. 2-17 explicitly op-
erates with two guiding principles: that concerning the pastoral of-
fice, and that concerning the order of creation. The Appendix’s ren-
dering consistently refuses to acknowledge this second principle.
Thus, the Appendix says that Res. 2-17 allowed freedom for con-
gregations to alter policies and practices “provided the polity de-
veloped conforms to the Scriptural principles informing the
Synod’s position regarding the pastoral office.” However, what the
1969 Resolution actually said was that congregations could make
changes “provided the polity developed conforms to the general
scriptural principles that women neither hold the pastoral office nor
exercise authority over men’ (emphasis added).

Again, in 1969 Res. 2-17 the Synod acknowledged (as it always
had) a principle of the order of creation which defines the relations
between men and women in the church, as well as specific appli-
cation of this principle in allowing only men to serve in the pas-
toral office. That this is the correct reading of Res. 2-17 is clear
from the 1970 ruling of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
(CCM) to which the Appendix refers.‘ In its sample constitutional
paragraph, the CCM allows the service of women as officers and
members of board and committees “as long as these positions are
not directly involved in the specific functions of the pastoral office
... and as long as this service does not violate the order of creation
(usurping authority over men)” (emphasis added). This position of
the Synod was (as the Appendix notes) subsequently reaffirmed by
Synod in convention in 1981 and in 1986.5 What is not clearly ad-
mitted in the Appendix is that the present Report challenges the re-
peated and historic position of the Synod regarding the service of
women in congregational offices such as chairman, vice-chairman
and committee chairs. In the Appendix and in open discussion, the
members of the majority and the staff made much of the CCM
statement that “the Synod may further define its position in the fu-
ture.” To be sure, it may, and in the Report the majority clearly de-
sires a redefinition. But has the groundwork been laid to sustain
such a change?

2. The present Report is in response to 1989 Resolution 3-13A,
which asked the CTCR to prepare a study concerning the service of
women in congregational and synodical offices. The specific ques-
tion posed by that resolution was whether women may serve “in
all offices of the congregation, including that of chairman, vice-
chairman and elder, and district and synodical boards and commis-
sions where their official function would, in effect, involve public
accountability for the function(ing) of the pastoral office” (empha-
sis added).° In its first resolve, Res. 3-13A assumes that the offices
in question “would in effect involve public accountability for the