LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 217

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

217

9

10

can accept this new “public teaching” of the LCA with the understanding that
“thereby no clear Word of Scripture is denied, contradicted or ignored” is
disingenuous at best. By the same token, as noted earlier, to pretend as if
those who are convinced that women’s ordination is clearly not forbidden by
Scripture can accept this new “public teaching” of the LCA with the
understanding that “thereby no clear Word of Scripture is denied,
contradicted or ignored” is equally disingenuous. Proponents of the
ordination of women should be honest enough to admit this, and to oppose
this proposal on grounds of conscience—i.e., their own conscience-bound
conviction that Scripture “cannot be used” to prohibit the ordination of
women.

Who decides, however, when and on what basis longstanding and deeply-held
divergent teachings can simply be characterized as “mere opinions” that are
no longer divisive of fellowship? WFDF never seriously addresses this
question. (See the CTCR’s February 2000 document The Lutheran
Understanding of Church Fellowship, which references the [orthodox]
principles of church fellowship affirmed at the founding of the LCA in 1965
through its Theses of Agreement [p. 26, fn. 57] as well as the 1961 “Statement
of the Overseas Committee” which reflects this same understanding of
church fellowship as rooted in agreement in doctrine and practice [p. 27, fn.
61]).

This section of WFDF closes by citing several points from a 2018 report of the
LCA’s CTICR offering its own “rationale” for “why the ordination of both
women and men need not be divisive” (12). In some ways this is the most
disturbing part of the entire document. It further obfuscates matters by
asserting, for example, that “divergent views” on matters such as the
ordination of women (which are here relegated to the level of “exegetical
opinion”) ought not affect “foundational teachings of the Christian faith” (such
as the doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, justification). “Division may occur
only when teachings that contradict such foundational teachings are held and
openly taught” (13).
Implicit in this kind of thinking is a denial (or failure to recognize) that the
doctrine we confess has a unified and organic wholeness. In Matthew 28:20
Jesus instructs his disciples to teach the baptized “to observe all that I have
commanded you.” In Acts 20:27 Paul soberly testifies that “I did not shrink
from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” The satis est of AC VII must
be read in light of the proviso of FC SD X 31 that we are bound to agree with
one another “in the doctrine and all its articles,” all of which are inextricably
intertwined. It is impossible to “change the doctrine” in one area with no
resulting ramifications for the other interrelated articles of the same, one,
unified doctrine.
WFDF characterizes the serious and longstanding disagreement about the
ordination of women in the LCA as merely a “matter of exegetical opinion.”

11

The question, of course, is: what will this look like in practice? Who decides
what constitutes “harmful behavior,” or “discrimination” or “harassment?”
Who decides when “dialogue” and “conversation” become less than
“respectful?” As is amply demonstrated by current cultural dynamics and
tensions, individuals and groups can (and typically do) have radically different
perspectives, feelings and perceptions about when and how these lines are
crossed. The same questions and tensions will almost certainly surface in
churchly settings, with little or no certainty about what the consequences
may be if someone is suspected or accused of “harmful” or “disrespectful”
speech, attitudes or behavior.
WFDF says: “The Framework does not impose any requirements for pastors to
affirm or disclose (publicly or privately) their views on women’s ordination”
(15). No requirements are imposed. But what about restrictions? To what
extent will pastors who oppose the ordination of women be free—privately
and publicly—to confess and defend and publicize and teach and preach as
their consciences compel them to do, without fear of being accused of
showing disrespect or causing harm or threatening the “unity” of the church?
The final paragraph on “worship” acknowledges that in this area “there are
matters that will need to be worked through in the 2024-2027 synodical
period.” Aside from the serious (fatal) flaws in the proposal itself, it seems
highly irresponsible to offer a proposal like this for formal adoption while
leaving critical, real-life issues like worship completely unaddressed and
unresolved. Will pastors who oppose the ordination of women be expected to
commune at altars where women are presiding? Will they be asked or
expected to participate in jointly leading worship or co-officiate with women,
at the risk of showing “disrespect” if they refuse? Simply to say, “we’ll have to
work through those issues later—trust us!” shows a lack of respect for those
whose conscience-bound beliefs will almost certainly force them to make
decisions that may well have harmful (!) consequences for them.
Framework Part D: Commitments to congregations and parishes (16-20).
Like the previous section, this part of the framework purports to address
differing “conscience views” among individuals, congregations and parishes

The CTICR’s unsubstantiated assertions about “divergent views” and
“foundational teachings” also raise inevitable (and ultimately unanswerable)
questions about who decides (and on what basis) what is or is not a
“foundational teaching,” and when, whether and how a “non-foundational
teaching” might contradict a “foundational teaching.” Further, it implies that
opponents of the ordination of women who believe and maintain that this
false teaching does, in fact, have implications for more “foundational
teachings,” and/or who sincerely believe that the ordination of women is, in
fact, a church-dividing issue, are the real schismatics (“division may occur
only…”), even as they are assured (in the next two sections of WFDF) that they
will be warmly welcomed and that their different (wrong!) beliefs and
practices will be tolerated as part of “one church with one teaching on
ordination.” If conscience-bound opponents of the ordination of women are
skeptical about the nature and workability of such warm and welcoming
“unity,” such skepticism might well be excused.
Framework Part C: Commitments to pastors and pastoral ministry candidates
(14-15).
The opening paragraph under “Conscience views” sums up this entire section:
“Our commitment is that every pastor in the Church will be received and
welcomed by the whole Church in an environment of mutual respect and
understanding, where differing consciences are acknowledged while ensuring
that harmful behavior is not tolerated” (14). There follow repeated warnings
against “discrimination” and “harassment,” and multiple calls for “mutual
respect,” “respectful conversations” and “respect for different views.”

12

of the LCA. Nowhere in the entire proposal, however, is the term “conscience”
defined or discussed. In fact, in the section titled “Conscience views” in Part
D, the term “conscience” does not even occur. Note the various alternative
terminology used:
“Individuals, congregations and parishes within the Church may hold differing
beliefs on the issue of women’s ordination, including cases where pastors
hold different views than members of their congregations. We affirm the right
to hold diverse perspectives, while making a commitment that every pastor in
the Church will be received and welcomed by the whole church in an
environment of respect, understanding and unity” (16; emphasis added). Here
matters of “conscience” are characterized variously as “differing beliefs” or
“different views” or “diverse perspectives” (or, as noted earlier, “differing
opinions”)—which ultimately empties the term “conscience” of any real
meaning or significance. Whatever is meant here, it is certainly not what
Luther had in mind at Worms when he said: “To go against conscience is
neither right nor safe.” The main concern in Parts C and D of WFDF, it seems,
is to warn against questioning or disrespecting someone else’s “conscience”
(i.e., “perspective” or “opinion”).
As in the previous section it is noted that “Congregations and their members
will not be required to adopt a specific conscience view or belief [or] explain
or defend their position regarding women’s ordination” (17). But (again) that is
hardly the most pressing question. Will they be free to “explain and defend”
their position under the vague provisions of the WFDF? That question is never
clearly addressed.
Framework Part E: Tenure-based provision for nomination for bishop (21).
For those who have may concerns about a newly ordained woman pastor
being immediately eligible for nomination as bishop or assistant bishop, this
simply “kicks the can down the road” by requiring “minimum service” of six
years before eligibility to stand for nomination. Previously (i.e., currently, at the
time of this writing), no such “minimum service” was required for eligibility to
serve in these offices. So why this change, and why now? The answer is
obvious: this is an attempt to appease in some way, and at least initially, those
who oppose (or have concerns about) women’s ordination itself, and who

2026 Convention Workbook