LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 248

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

248

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
T H E M I S S O U R I S YN O D

T H E M I S S O U R I S YN O D

Notice again, however, what the 1969 resolution does not say. It does not require congregations
to adopt women’s suffrage. It does not force women to vote. It does not oppose the consciences of
those who choose to remain with the traditional practice of the Synod, nor does it claim there
must be uniformity of practice on this matter within the Synod precisely because it is a custom of
the church on a position that Scripture does not address. On the contrary, it urges “cautious and
deliberate action in the spirit of Christian love.” Had this been a matter of doctrine, then the case
would have been different. The Synod would have required unity, and it would have required unity
based upon the clear Word of God. In this matter, however, it believed Scripture neither prohibited
nor required the exercise of voting rights by women. It took this position in part because Scripture
does not require certain forms of polity, such as congregational assemblies or Synod conventions,
just as it does not require bishops or state churches (as was customary throughout European
Lutheranism since the Reformation).59 Ultimately, the Synod did not believe women’s suffrage
threatened the unity of the church, even where congregations could have different practices. As 1995
Resolution 3-05 said, “Honest Christian conscience can and does exist on both sides of this issue, but
such difference of opinion is not divisive of Christian fellowship.”60

Excursus: Women’s Suffrage
A parallel to this issue may be found elsewhere in recent Synod history: the adoption of women’s
suffrage. The LCMS had long practiced male-only voting membership. This is entirely understandable given the emphasis upon the role of the voters assembly as the primary instrument for
decision-making within the local congregation (and, by extension, the Synod convention as the
primary instrument for decision-making within the Synod more broadly).54 Some were concerned
that allowing a woman to vote in congregational or Synod assemblies would contradict New
Testament passages concerning a woman’s public role in the church (such as 1 COR. 11:3–10; 1 COR. 14:33–35;
AND 1 TIM. 2:11–14).55 As early as the 1956 convention, the Synod sought to address concerns regarding
women’s suffrage. That convention reaffirmed the longstanding practice of adult-only, male-only
voting membership, even requiring the 10 “nay” votes at the convention to give their reasons for
voting against the resolution to the secretary of the Synod. Nevertheless, the report of the commission making this proposal at the convention stated clearly that Scripture does not address women’s
suffrage. Ultimately, it affirms the practice as a “Scripture-sanctioned” and “time-tested” custom that
the Synod may retain if it wishes (as the 1956 convention voted to do).56
That position would change in 1969, when the Synod convention voted to allow women’s
suffrage. In a resolution cited above — 1969 Resolution 2-17 — the convention affirmed that
Scripture did not have a congregational assembly, or other expressions of church polity, in mind in
the prohibitions against women speaking publicly, teaching or exercising authority over men. These
prohibitions had to do with holding the pastoral office and exercising its distinctive functions, that
is, with the public preaching office in the church — the Office of the Public Ministry. In this sense, it
took the same exegetical position as 1956, namely, that Scripture neither commanded nor prohibited
women’s suffrage, yet it came to a different practical implication for the life of the church.57 Women
could participate in congregational assemblies; serve as delegates to Synod conventions; and
hold positions on boards, commissions and committees. It concluded that the congregations and
other entities of the Synod had “liberty to alter their policies and practices in regard to women’s
involvement in the work of the church according to these declarations, provided the polity developed
conforms to the general Scriptural principles that women neither hold the pastoral office nor
‘exercise authority over men.’”58

It is also worth saying that there were many subtle exceptions to this practice within the Synod, even if outright voting membership was not granted to women (as the United
States itself did not until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920). For instance, women had the right to express their voice in matters of excommunication or in
vetoing the calling of church workers who may not possess the requisite biblical qualifications for their office. On this, see John Fritz, Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: Concordia, 1932),
315, and Theodore Graebner, Pastor and People (St. Louis: Concordia, 1932), 126. Additionally, the National Evangelical Lutheran Church (Finnish) practiced women’s suffrage at
the time of its merger with the Missouri Synod in 1964, when its congregations were incorporated into existing Synod districts. It is uncertain whether they retained suffrage. On
this, see Harold Austermann, “A History of the National Evangelical Lutheran Church to Merger with the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod” (unpublished Bachelor of Divinity
thesis, Concordia Seminary, 1970).
54

For more on this, see LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations, The Order of Creation: History, Theology, Definition (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod, 2022).

55

56

1956 Proceedings, 569.

This is worth comparison with a 1982 opinion of the exegetical department of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, which stated unequivocally — even against the earlier
findings of the 1956 report that likewise opposed women’s suffrage — that women’s suffrage in the church “is contrary to at least ten clear testimonies of the Word of God.” See “The
Opinion of the Exegetical Department of Concordia Theological Seminary concerning Woman Suffrage,” 8. www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/CTSFWOpinionWomensSuffrage.pdf.

In the case of lay readers (as in the case of women’s suffrage), we have an example of the tension between
uniformity and variety in practice. Neither the CTCR nor the Synod claimed that this was a matter of doctrine,
that is, the clear teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. The CTCR believed uniformity in the practice
of lectors was desirable — much like the first Constitution of the Synod — but did not believe a variety in that
practice damaged the doctrinal unity we share. The Synod in convention, however, approached it differently, not
claiming that uniformity in this matter was desirable, yet urging the “responsible” exercise of variety.
When the Synod makes decisions on matters of this nature, it should be said that such decisions are never
permanent or inviolable. We submit all church decisions to the rule of Holy Scripture — and the Lutheran
Confessions as accurate expositions of that Word of God — and that in turn means we must be willing to change
those decisions if and when we determine they are not in accord with God’s Word. There are clearly delineated
processes in our bylaws for the reconsideration of doctrinal statements and resolutions which a member of the
Synod believes to contradict the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions. Even more so, in cases where we claim that
a matter is free, or one that Scripture does not directly address, we must also be willing as a church body to reconsider our position. The Synod is free to consider a new resolution proposing a new position. This is especially true
for certain practices neither commanded nor prohibited, such as lay lectors or women’s suffrage. There may be
good reason for changing those practices, whether that involves resolving a preventable conflict within our church
body or providing a united front against certain cultural movements, or simply the fact that we desire a common
form of this or that practice. The point is that we must reason together. We must work together as fellow brothers
and sisters in Christ. We must bear in mind the consciences of others within our fellowship, we must follow our
duly agreed upon Synod Constitution and Bylaws, and we must seek to find solutions to our problems that neither

57

58

1969 Proceedings, 88.

This point was expressly made by C.F.W. Walther in his first presidential address in 1848. See Carl S. Meyer, ed., Moving Frontiers: Readings in the History of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia, 1964), 174–175.
59

60

25

1995 Proceedings, 120.

26

T H E M I S S O U R I S YN O D

compromise the unity we have in doctrine, nor turn something that is an adiaphoron into a law binding upon
consciences.

What Now?

Questions for Discussion:
1. How does the recency of a case study impact the way that these issues are evaluated?
2. How does our evaluation of adiaphora change when we have a personal investment or strong opinion
about the issues involved?
3. To what extent should the Synod provide guidance, stipulate practice or set forth “rules” to settle a divisive
issue that is in fact a matter of adiaphora? Is it helpful or harmful when it does?
4. How much of the wider church (circuit, district, Synod, other Christians) needs to be taken into account,
and to what extent, when making a decision about a potentially divisive practice of adiaphora?

This study document has not sought to provide precise answers to which ceremonies or other practices in
the Missouri Synod require uniformity and which ones allow for variety. Nor does it seek to identify what is
properly adiaphora and what is not. The Commission can categorically say that, where Scripture or the Lutheran
Confessions directly address matters of doctrine or practice, those matters require unity and are not up for debate,
compromise or change.61 There are many practices that do fit within the category of practices expressly commanded or forbidden by Scripture. That list includes admission to the Lord’s Supper, the avoidance of unionism and
syncretism, the call and ordination of pastors, the responsibility of the pastoral office for preaching the Word and
administering the Sacraments, the prohibition of women’s ordination, or the restriction of certain distinctive functions of the pastoral office to men.
Yet many of the practices at issue in the Missouri Synod historically, or those detailed in the preceding case
studies, are not clearly addressed by Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. Likewise, many of the worship practices often cited in the LCMS debates over proper practice fit into this category — things like instrumentation in
worship, specific rites or ceremonies within the order of worship, conduct of the liturgy, vestments, certain forms
of lay assistance in worship, among others, are not directly addressed by the Scriptures, nor are they part of the
doctrinal content of the Book of Concord that the Synod has always considered obligatory.62 However, the fact that
something is an adiaphoron does not mean the Synod is prevented from collectively adopting or urging a common
practice. This has been the case for many issues in our history, such as the decision to require the use of doctrinally pure worship materials, the rejection of women’s suffrage before 1969, or later restrictions on women serving
as elders or assisting in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper.63 We may adopt — and have done so frequently — a
common practice not required by Scripture, in accordance with our duly prescribed procedures for adopting
Synod resolutions, provided we do not maintain that Scripture clearly commands or prohibits certain practices
when it does not. In that event, such a decision may invoke Formula of Concord X, which binds us to oppose practices being required as necessary that are truly adiaphora.
How then should we proceed when we disagree about whether something is truly an adiaphoron or not?
How should we address a contested practice that needs change or reconsideration? One can get the impression
that appealing to the Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod on matters of either doctrine or practice
In this sense, we reject the relativistic approach to doctrine and practice that characterizes many in the ecumenical movement or among other Lutheran church bodies globally.
For an example, see the Lutheran World Federation, Now There Are Varieties: A Study Document on Lutheran Identity in the Global Lutheran Communion (Geneva: The Lutheran
World Federation, 2023).

61

It is of more than passing interest that the 1956 Synod convention — the same convention that reaffirmed the practice of women’s suffrage — passed a resolution (1956 Res.
3-18) appealing to then-Article III 5 concerning liturgical uniformity. It specifically resolved that “pastors, teachers, and theological students who have a special interest in liturgics
continue to be warned to exercise an appropriate measure of caution in these matters, so that the consciences of our people and clergy be not disturbed, and that our Synod be on
guard lest ‘Romanizing tendencies’ develop in our midst.” It further asked that the Praesidium and district presidents examine liturgical practices in light of Article III 5 and “deal
vigorously with offences arising in the area of liturgical practices” (1956 Proceedings, 550–551). The appeal to uniformity in practice can again be used for or against various forms of
liturgical worship.
62

On the last, see 2016 Resolution 5-14, “To Reaffirm Biblical Teaching on Man and Woman in the Church,” 2016 Proceedings, 163. For another worship-related example, see 2016
Resolution 4-04A, “To Appeal to the LCMS Congregations, Workers, and Institutions within Christian Freedom and for Love’s Sake to Retain a Common Order of Service for the
Lord’s Supper,” 2016 Proceedings, 147.
63

27

2026 Convention Workbook

28