LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 216

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

216

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
5

paragraph: “In fulfillment of the resolution of the 2021-23 General Synod, the
Framework offers an approach whereby both practices can exist within the
Church” (8; emphasis added). “Different theological beliefs” have now been
reduced to two differing (and presumably complementary) “practices,” all for
the sake of the pragmatic goal of institutional “unity.” “The Framework
provides details of how this way forward might operate in practical ways, so
that people holding either view on ordination might remain together” (7;
emphasis added). This by no means solves the problem or contradiction, of
course, because the LCA’s own Theses of Agreement point to the inerrant
Scriptures as “the only true source, norm, rule and standard for all teaching
and practice in the Christian Church” (emphasis added).
In what follows, we will briefly examine the five parts of the proposed
framework and offer some additional comments and questions for reflection
and consideration.
Framework Part A: Commitment to continuity of identity and form (9).
In an effort to give “reasons for hope” that the proposed framework will be
“welcomed” by “the majority of members” of the LCA, the “Background”
section of the document states: “Importantly, while the Framework
acknowledges the division among us, it also articulates the strong theological
foundations on which we agree (see Section 5)” (7).
Section 5 (page 9) comprises the discussion of Part A of the Framework, a
commitment to continuity of “identity and form.” Notably (and strikingly), it is
the shortest part of the Framework and contains almost nothing of any real
theological substance as pertains to the issue at hand. It has five points. The
first says “we uphold our teaching on the Office of the Ministry as expressed in
Theses of Agreement VI:1-10 and confessed in Augsburg Confession V.” It then
quotes paragraphs 1-3 of AC V, with no further commentary or discussion—as
if simply quoting this section of the Confessions somehow “proves” that the
ordination of women is consistent with the teaching of the Lutheran
Confessions. Of course, the ordination of women was not an issue in the 16th
century, so to pretend as if AC V and XIV “support” or “condone” or “do not
forbid” or “are consistent with” this practice is nothing more than an
unwarranted argument from silence. Similarly unfounded arguments are

6

sometimes proffered about the lack of a clear confessional position on the
authority of Scripture (since there is no distinct article on this topic in the
Lutheran Confessions), but, of course, this too is an argument from silence
since the authority of Scripture was not a contested issue at the time.
Point 2 quotes Clause 7 of the LCA’s Document of Union: “We declare that
wherever continued cooperation in the preaching of the gospel and the
administration of the sacraments and worship exists, there we have a witness
to the world of unity in the faith and a profession of church fellowship.” Again
notably (and strikingly), there is no reference at all to the “Principles governing
church fellowship” in the Theses of Agreement, which contain the strong
references to the authority of Scripture cited earlier and many other
statements that contradict the notion of “unity” or fellowship presumed in
WFDF.
Points 3 and 4, consisting of one sentence each, simply point out that
Churchwide structures and understanding of “membership” will remain as
they currently are. Point 5 is also one sentence: “The Church continues to
uphold its ecumenical and international relationships.”
If these five points constitute “the strong theological foundations on which we
agree,” it is hard to fathom how they can serve to give “hope” and assurance
that the Framework is theologically sound and well-grounded. The fact that
what is identified by the WFDF itself as the main and foundational theological
basis of the proposal virtually ignores the LCA’s own (and theologically
substantive) Theses of Agreement (certain portions of which are reduced to
mere inclusion in three appendices) is quite telling—and deeply
disconcerting.
Framework Part B: Changing the teaching to allow for ordination of women
and men (10-13).
This is the longest of the five parts of WFDF, and also the most confusing,
troubling and self-contradictory. It seeks to tackle the key issue at stake here,
an admitted “change of teaching” in the LCA on an admittedly controverted
issue, yet all the while attempting to argue that nothing of any real theological
substance or consequence will be impacted by this change of teaching.

7

The opening paragraph is contradictory on its face: “The Church in Synod
changes its public teaching, amending the wording of TA VI:11 to allow both
men and women to be ordained, acknowledging the change under Clause 3 of
the Document of Union and continuing as one church with one teaching on
ordination” (10; emphasis added). So: we are changing our teaching to
incorporate two contradictory teachings, which we will simply characterize as
“one teaching.”
The next paragraph adds to the confusion, since after asserting that the LCA
will continue as “one church with one teaching on ordination,” it
“acknowledges the different theological positions on the gender (male and
female) of pastors but considers them non-divisive of church fellowship,
enabling the LCA to remain as one Church.” (10; emphasis added).
Perhaps the best critique of this kind of “logic” is simply to let it speak for
itself. Two “different theological positions” are acknowledged, but somehow
this does not equate to “two different (and contradictory) teachings.” How can
this be? As they regularly remind us throughout the document, the authors of
WFDF simply have a job to do. Their job is not to determine what the Bible
says (that approach has been attempted for years, and found wanting), but to
carry out the mandate of the LCA’s General Synod. They are bound not by
Scripture, but by pragmatically-driven resolutions of the Synod:
“The current public teaching of the LCA does not permit two practices of
ordination (TA VI:11). In carrying out the resolution of the General Synod
(2021-23) to develop a framework for the LCA to ‘operate as one church with
two different practices of ordination’, the Convention of General Synod is
advised that any proposal put forward to meet this synodical resolution
requires a change to the teaching of the Church with regards to male only
ordination” (11).
Moreover: “A change to public teaching in the LCA will require more than a
simple rescinding or removal of TA VI:11. Any such decisions would result in
the Church having no clear public teaching on the eligibility of duly qualified
women to be regularly called by a congregation or the Church, and publicly
acknowledged through the rite of ordination (TA VI:7,8). On the other hand, if a

2026 Convention Workbook

8

proposed amendment of TA VI:11 to permit the ordination of women and men
were to meet the necessary constitutional requirement to change the public
doctrine of the church, then it would become the credible teaching of the LCA
and would be afforded the same authority as any other part of the Theses of
Agreement” (11; emphasis added).
If proper constitutional procedures have been followed, it does not matter,
apparently, that the LCA’s new public teaching is self-contradictory
theologically. The Synod’s public teaching is necessarily “credible teaching,”
because the church has followed “the process outlined for changing the
public teaching of the church” (11). Scripture and the Confessions have not
been compromised, “because our public teaching on ordination claims to
clearly represent the position of Scripture and the Confessions” (11;
emphasis added). Claiming this is apparently enough to make it so, even
though the new public teaching admittedly incorporates two different
positions that understand Scripture in contradictory ways.
Since claiming something apparently makes it so, WFDF can also simply
claim that such contradictory positions and practices “are not divisive of
fellowship,” with the following caveats (required by the LCA’s Theses of
Agreement):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)

There be readiness in principle to submit to the authority of the Word
of God
Thereby no clear Word of Scripture is denied, contradicted, or
ignored
Such divergent views in no wise impair, infringe upon, or violate the
central doctrine of Scripture, justification by grace through faith in
Jesus Christ
Nothing be taught contrary to the publica doctrina of the Lutheran
Church as laid down in its Confessions
Such divergent views are not propagated as the publica doctrina of
the Church and in no wise impair the doctrine of Holy Writ.

Of course, these (substantive and far-reaching!) caveats are the very issues at
stake in the LCA’s long-standing debate on this issue. To pretend as if those
who are convinced that women’s ordination is clearly forbidden by Scripture