LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 411

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 411

A Minority Opinion on
The Service of Women in Congregational
Offices of Executive Director/President
or Assistant Director/Vice-President

The Minnesota South District Convention requested the
CTCR’s recommendation regarding “the appropriateness of
women serving as Executive Director or President or Assistant Di-
rector or Vice President of congregations” /emphasis added].

The commission’s response fails to do this. Nowhere does the
commission clearly state: “yes, this is appropriate” or “‘no, this is
not appropriate.” Though our Synod cannot “walk together” along
two diverging paths, the commission merely concludes that:

Scripture does not prohibit women from holding these humanly-es-

tablished offices, assuming that the occupants of these offices do not

“perform those functions that are distinctive to the public exercise of the

ministry of Word and sacraments.”

This “opened door” invites departures from the historic position
our Synod consistently maintained up to the 1960s’ Sexual Revo-
lution. In 1995 the Synod in Convention assigned the task of pro-
ducing a Comprehensive Study of the Scriptural Relationship
Between Men and Women to the CTCR (Resolution 3-10). Nine
years later, the commission has yet to complete this assignment. At
one time commission members intended to address the Image of
God, Orders of Creation, and the meaning of authentein before ad-
dressing questions such as these. To issue this opinion in the ab-
sence of that comprehensive study and without carefully and
thoroughly engaging these issues should be seen as woefully pre-
mature. The opinion does not get to the roots of the Scriptural po-
sition on these matters. The reasoning employed also lacks the
weight accumulated by centuries of Christian interpretation.'

Despite its many fine statements on behalf of male headship in
the family and God’s created order, this CTCR opinion will foster
exactly the opposite of what it professes to “encourage.” Opening
these congregational offices to the service of women will subvert
and negate male headship in the home and pastoral office. The
CTCR recognizes this as undesirable, yet its opinion manifests a
willingness to legitimize a change in our polity, making such an out-
come possible and more likely. More women leaders will reduce
male congregational involvement. Scolding men not to “neglect” or
“abdicate” their responsibilities will not suffice to offset this ten-
dency.

At its 2001 Convention, the Synod endorsed C. F. W. Walther’s
Church and Ministry as its official position. Walther insisted that
congregational officers must meet the same qualifications as lay-
elders, who can only be male (Thesis VIII, pp. 289-290 in J. T.
Mueller’s translation). To permit or endorse a position contrary to
the Synod’s official position requires a more extensive theological
rationale than the commission’s opinion has provided.

In their receipt of God’s grace in and through Jesus Christ, men
and women are equal, but in their responsibilities before God, and
in their relation to one another in the home and in the church, they
are not interchangeable. God gives the right and privilege of pro-
creation to a married couple, but the wife alone may exercise the
childbearing activity. Both within the family and without, equality
is not identity. Differences between men and women are part of
God’s created order, and they are good.

1 Timotny 2:12 clearly states: “BUT I Do NOT ALLOW A WOMAN
TO TEACH OR TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN, BUT TO REMAIN
QUIET.” This categorical statement reaffirms the principle of male
spiritual leadership that runs throughout the entire Scriptures.

The commission itself notes that “While the Scriptural restric-
tion may contradict the prevailing winds of the egalitarian Zeitgeist,
the church belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the world.” Yet the
commission wrongly limits this statement to the pastoral office.

Scripture here speaks of “A WOMAN” and “A MAN”—no “office”
is mentioned. Regardless of the offices we do or do not occupy, our

gender remains part of our very identity. Gender precedes and su-
percedes any and all offices. God created man in his own image as
“MALE AND FEMALE” before He ever created or mandated any office,
and certainly before the church established any offices. We are not
free to ignore our manhood or womanhood—this gift of God is no
adiaphoron.’ It is a platonic or Gnostic myth to imagine that any-
one can occupy an office and exercise its functions as a genderless
person. One’s speech, actions, and choices can be nothing other than
those of a man or a woman. Ail that the Scriptures have to say re-
garding the relationship between men and women applies to each
person in a congregational office.

The commission has bypassed or overlooked the full implica-
tions of important Scripture texts such as GENESIS 1:26—28,
1 CorINTHIANS 1] and 14 and | Timotuy 2? in order to open this
door. What the commission said of EPHESIANS 5 (“the gospel does
not destroy this created design, but rather purifies it of sinful dis-
tortion”) applies to these other Scripture texts as well.

“Especially in our cultural context,” notes the commission, “a
congregation should be concerned about what its polity says and in
what way its polity supports the church’s teaching.” Our Lutheran
Confessions state (FC SD X) that during a time of controversy, adi-
aphora cease being matters of indifference and become matters of con-
fessing our faith. Appearances become important. We must avoid
giving the impression that we are somehow capitulating to an unbe-
lieving world or submitting to its influences. In the context of our cul-
ture’s unremitting hostility to Holy Scripture and historic Christian
teachings on the relationship between men and women, this aspect of
adiaphora should have borne greater weight in the commission’ s con-
clusions. If nothing is commanded or forbidden in Holy Scripture in
matters of polity, what then establishes the “rights, privileges and re-
sponsibilities” of the church’s members?

Whatever responsibilities a congregation may assign to a “Presi-
dent,” “Vice-President,” Executive Director’ or “Assistant Director,”
these titles would poorly fit any offices not involved somehow in guid-
ing, directing, and exercising authority over others (including men) in
the Christian congregation. The commission’s argument (from si-
lence) that the Scriptures do not mention these offices affords no valid
support for its conclusion that there are “‘no mandates” regarding the
polity of a congregation. Scripture establishes principles and precepts
as well as laws, commands and “mandates,” and these principles do
preclude certain options. These principles apply to the congregation
no less than any other part of God’s created order. The decisions of
any LCMS Committee, Council or Voters’ Assembly are to be guided
by the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. The President,
Vice-President and other officers are responsible before God to en-
sure that they do so. Fulfilling this responsibility requires the exercise
of spiritual leadership.

A presiding or directing officer sets the agenda, proposes deci-
sions, allocates resources, determines who will (and will not) speak
in an assembly or meeting, and rules statements in and out of order.
Without this authority, a congregational officer could not be effec-
tive. Some proposals set a precedent for similar actions in the fu-
ture, or take on the enduring and ongoing character of “policies.”
These should be recognized as a type of organizational “teaching.”
They are “authoritative” in that they bind, direct or permit some ac-
tions and options in preference to others. As Dr. David Scaer has
said elsewhere, “fruits identify the tree (MATT 7:17—19). Doctrines
are embedded in our practices even before they are articu-
lated....Yes, doctrine and practice are inseparably related as two
sides of one coin.”

The aphorism that “personnel is policy” acknowledges the in-
carnational implications of our offices and organizations. Officers
often play a significant role in the nomination or appointment of
people to the Board of Elders, Personne! Committee, or Call Com-
mittee. An LCMS Pastor’s “Diploma of Vocation” (call document)
is often signed by the President of the congregation. This signature

2007 Convention Workbook