LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 215

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
R62.5

215

2

CTCR Response to the Lutheran Church of Australia’s “Way Forward” Proposal
December 2024
Preface
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations [CTCR] of the Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod [LCMS] has received a request from LCMS President
Matthew Harrison to prepare a response to proposed action by the Lutheran
Church of Australia at its 2024 General Synod that would result in the LCA’s
beginning to “operate as ‘one church with two different practices of
ordination’” (WAY FORWARD Detailed Framework, 3; hereafter WFDF,
released and published on July 19, 2024: see Appendix A). Central and
essential to this proposal was that “the Church [the LCA] changes its teaching
to allow for the ordination of women and men” to the pastoral office (WFDF,
3).
On October 5, 2024, at the LCA’s 2024 General Synod, the “Way Forward”
proposal was essentially and substantially adopted (see “Synod endorses the
ordination of both women and men” at https://www.lca.org.au/synodendorses-the-ordination-of-both-women-and-men/). This response of the
CTCR to the proposal was substantially drafted before the LCA’s 2024 General
Synod, even though it was finally adopted by the CTCR at its December 5-6,
2024 meeting. This document seeks to evaluate the proposal as it was
originally submitted, therefore, not (obviously) to impact the outcome of the
LCA’s 2024 General Synod or to comment on or evaluate statements and
actions resulting from the General Synod (see the article referenced above).
The LCMS’s official position on the ordination of women is clear and wellknown, so it will not come as a surprise to anyone that the CTCR of the LCMS
is deeply troubled and saddened by this proposal and how its adoption will
profoundly and negatively impact church workers and congregations within
and outside the LCA, the LCMS’s relationship with the LCA , and (potentially)
other church bodies (including partner churches of the LCMS) which are
confronting this critical issue. Our intention here, however, is to evaluate the
LCA’s proposal on its own terms. The CTCR believes that even proponents of
the ordination of women, or those who are perhaps undecided on the issue,
will find this proposal to be deeply flawed in numerous ways (both in terms of

its theological presuppositions and assertions and in terms of its logical
argumentation) and a completely unworkable “solution” to the problem of
longstanding division on this issue within the LCA.
Introduction, Background, Overview
The WAY FORWARD Detailed Framework begins with an introduction,
background, and overview of the proposal’s framework (pages 3-8). The very
first sentence of the introduction acknowledges the serious nature of the
“impasse” that exists in the LCA on the ordination of women: “Despite more
than three decades of theological study and debate within the Lutheran
Church of Australia and New Zealand (LCANZ), we remain divided on whether
or not the Scriptures permit the ordination of women” (3). Note the phrase:
“whether or not the Scriptures permit.” While elsewhere in the document the
division is described in terms of different “views” or “understandings” or even
“opinions,” here at the outset, at least, it is explicitly acknowledged that the
critical question is “What does God in Holy Scripture teach about this matter?
What does He permit or not permit?” One can hardly minimize the
significance of that question in evaluating this proposal.
This point is reiterated on page 4: “Some among us maintain that these
Scriptures clearly support the LCA’s public teaching that prohibits a woman
from being called into the office of the public ministry. Others believe that
these [Scripture] passages cannot be used this way and that ordination of
women to the office of the public ministry is consistent with the teaching of
the Scriptures and with the doctrine of the ministry as articulated in the
Lutheran Confessions” (emphasis added). Logically speaking, these are two
contradictory positions. They cannot be reconciled. Only one of the two
positions can be correct and the other must be a false view. As the proposal
itself acknowledges, either Scripture itself clearly prohibits the ordination of
women, or Scripture does not prohibit the ordination of women.
Any reasonably objective reader, therefore, even someone who cares nothing
about the issues involved (or even about Scripture or what it teaches), should
reject the framework’s proposed solution. The Way Forward essentially shrugs
aside the impasse and simply asserts or assumes that the two sides can live

3

4

together peaceably, harmoniously, and in good conscience with contradictory
convictions about what God, in His holy Word, permits or does not permit.
Having acknowledged the irreconcilable impasse, the proposed framework
simply goes on to offer what it describes as “practical solutions and steps to
implement the changes required to introduce the ordination of women in the
LCA” (3; emphasis added). The framework has five key points, each of which
we will comment on briefly later in this evaluation:

widely held positions on ordination within the LCA, that of: (1) men only, and
(2) both men and women. We are at an impasse. It is clear that resolution of
the ordination issue requires a different approach to any taken previously” (4;
emphasis added)—namely, a pragmatic “resolution” rather than a theological
one.

Part A: The Church makes the commitment to maintain its identity and form.
Part B: The Church changes its teaching to allow for the ordination of women
and men.
Part C: The Church makes a commitment to pastors and pastoral ministry
candidates that they will continue to be received and welcomed by the whole
church in a respectful environment.
Part D: The Church makes a commitment to congregations and parishes that
they may call a pastor who best aligns with their ministry plans.
Part E: The Church introduces a tenure-based provision for nomination for the
roles of bishop and assistant bishop.
Even the most charitable reading of WFDF must regard the proposed
“solution” to this serious and longstanding impasse in the LCA as nothing
short of breathtaking. It lacks not only theological substance and seriousness
but also ethical integrity. It strains credulity to think that even honest
proponents of the ordination of women can in good conscience accept a
proposal that allows for the full acceptance of a position (i.e., the rejection of
women’s ordination) that uses Scripture in a way that they believe Scripture
simply “cannot be used.”
It is clear from the very outset of the document, therefore, that what is being
proposed here is little more than an atheological pragmatism which prioritizes
an attempt to maintain institutional “unity” over concern for what the Bible
teaches or concern for what individual pastors, congregations and laity
believe about what the Bible actually teaches. There is little attempt to
disguise this pragmatic motivation and approach:
“Overall, since the first vote in 2000, the votes for and against the ordination of
women have shown little movement one way or another. There remain two

The authors of this proposal and framework might argue that such
pragmatism (with no apparent concern for genuine theological unity or ethical
integrity) was forced upon them by decisions made at the 2021-2023 LCA
convention, at which “delegates voted by a strong majority to direct the
General Church Board and College of Bishops (GCB-CoB) to find a way for us
to operate as ‘one church with two different practices of ordination’ and to
report back with a detailed framework to the 2024 General Pastors
Conference and General Synod” (3). A more honest approach, however, would
have been to say: “What we have been asked to do is impossible,” or perhaps
to propose some sort of institutional model or structure whereby some
outward institutional cooperation could be maintained (perhaps even
temporarily) while recognizing that the two differing theological views and
practices are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist in the same church—at
least in a church that claims to regard Scripture as “the infallible Word of
God,” “the only source and norm of Christian doctrine,” the “sure and
authoritative guide for life and practice,” and “the only and true source, norm,
rule and standard for all teaching and practice in the Christian Church” (DSTO
1A Theses of Agreement, 1-3; see Appendix 3 of the WFDF).
Nonetheless, the authors of the proposal and framework assert that they have
“diligently worked through the theological, constitutional and governance
requirements to allow this directive [of the 2021-2023 convention] to be
accomplished” (3; emphasis added).
In section 4, the proposal’s authors provide this overview: “The Framework
recognizes the different theological beliefs on ordination held by members of
the Church, that on the matter of the ordination of both women and men to
the office of the public ministry, the current male-only teaching of the Church
does not accommodate the different theological beliefs held by members of
the Church” (8). Note the repeated reference here to “different theological
beliefs.” Also note, however, the not-so-subtle shift in language in the next

2026 Convention Workbook