3-08a
An Analysis
The Lutheran church Missouri synod has made statements, issued documents, passed resolutions and fine tuned its thinking on the role of women in service of the church at virtually every convention since 1969. Yet something was palpably different in 2004. The resolution called for the acceptance of the conclusions of the 1994 CTCR document “The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices.” Debate on the floor was replete with both intrigue and suspense. First, a substitute motion failed to be accepted for consideration. Second, two motions to cease debate failed, one by only a single vote, before the heated dispute was concluded. Even after the motion had been called but “prior to the vote on the main motion a request was made and granted that the following response offered by the Commission on Constitutional Matters be recorded in the minutes: ‘According to these guidelines, this resolution does not give permission to women to preach in our synod’s congregations.’” Then after the motion was passed by a 53% to 47% majority literally hundreds of angry and disappointed delegates registered their negative votes. What had happened?
Simply put, the convention had passed resolution 3-08a which expanded significantly the right of women to hold offices in the congregations of the LC-MS. Like many resolutions of the synod, this decision, on the face of it, does not seem that huge. We thanked the CTCR. We reaffirmed that women may not be pastors. We also said that women may not “exercise any of the distinctive functions” of that office. We affirmed “that women may serve in humanly established offices in the church as long as the functions of these offices do not make them eligible to carry out ‘official functions that would involve public accountability for the functions of the pastoral office.’” We urged our congregations to “organize themselves in ways that complement and reinforce the family.” We urged “men not to neglect their leadership responsibilities in the congregations.” And we asked that before churches make changes regarding the service of women that they consult neighboring LCMS churches. Clearly the heated debate and close vote indicated that the assembly was not of one mind on the matter and few convention observers would conclude that commending the CTCR or encouraging collegiality among congregations were the cause of synodical consternation.
To understand what happened we must do five things.
First, we must understand the 1994 CTCR document which formed the bases and rational for the 2004 decision. Second, we must anticipate what practical changes will ensue within some congregations because of this 1994 document. Third, we must see briefly look at 3-08a. Fourth, we must apply our theology to the question of the role of women in service within the church and to the question of precisely what is the job of the pastor. And, fifth, we must anticipate the future in the LC-MS especially as she grapples with these recent changes.
I. The 1994 CTCR Document
What does “The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices” (SW) say? Ostensible SW tries to “hold in tension two equally valid themes.” First we should hold the conviction that men and women equally posses all the rights and privileges of the priesthood of believers. Second we need to maintain the Bible teaching about the requirements which circumscribe the pastoral office. SW asserts repeatedly that the pastoral office has been given only to men and only pastors should perform those functions which are unique to the office.
And what are these precise functions of the pastoral office? SW refers to these functions in a number of ways. First they are listed as “1) preaching in the services of the congregation; 2) leading the formal public services of worship; 3) the public administration of the sacraments; and the public administration of the office of the keys.” Later the document concludes that women “ought not lead the public worship service, (or) specifically carry out the teaching-preaching aspects of the service,” And again “women are not to take the position of one whom is assigned the responsibility for the formal, public proclamation of the Christian faith.” Summarizing, the document says that “women not hold the formal position of the authoritative public teaching office in the church, that is the office of pastor.”
SW reasons that, since the pastoral office is the only divinely established office in the church those functions assigned by God to it should be performed only by those who are eligible for the office. Since women are ineligible they shouldn’t perform the distinctive functions of the office. Other offices, however, manmade as they are, can assign to either men or women any of the functions of such offices provided these functions are not distinctive to the pastoral office. The “only stricture” placed upon women in their service in the congregations applies to those functions which “on behalf of the congregation and in the stead of Christ” the pastor performs that involve him “in the exercise of authority inherent in this authoritative public teaching office in the church.” This would suggest that if the pastor is doing something which could reasonably be preceded by the words “in the place and by the command of Christ,” then women should not do that. But if the pastor cannot say these words then the church is free to assign these tasks to women.
Not included in the limitations placed upon women would be the “many (humanly established) offices (which) are created for the purpose of assisting pastors…in the carrying out the duties of their office.” These human offices “should engage the service of both men and women.” But, while both men and women may assist the pastor in carrying out his duties, such assistance “should be distinguished in practice as in theory, from the public exercise of those functions that belong to the pastor’s supervision of the flock through the public proclamation of the word and the administration of the sacrament.” This would suggest, it seems, that the supervisory or oversight responsibilities of the pastor may not be delegated to a woman. But a woman may assist the pastor in his duties provided it does not involve oversight.
Functions of the pastoral offices considered distinctive, then, are:
Preaching,
Leading the formal services,
Public administration of the sacraments,
Administering the office of the keys,
Carrying out the teaching aspects of the service,
Responsibility for the formal public proclamation,
Holding the position of authoritative public teaching office,
Oversight responsibilities,
Those functions done on behalf of the church,
Thos functions done in the place of Christ.
Not included are those things which do not fall into these categories. What specifically are they? That remains agonizingly unclear. Women explicitly are given the right of assisting the pastor in carrying out his duties. Women are also explicitly given the right to serve as chairmen or vice chairmen provided the job description of these offices does not involve encroaching upon the pastor’s distinctive duties. It appear that the limits of the service of women in the church depends largely upon who would interpret 3-08a and SE. More on this below.
II. What will SW allow congregations to do in determining those offices and functions which women may hold and perform?
SW seems vague on the specifics – exasperatingly and perhaps intentionally so. But let us have a hand at a brief “catechism” none the less.
Yes unless this requires oversight of the church through word and sacrament.
Yes, although SW discourages the use of the word “elder” in favor of “deacon or deaconess.” Women may be elders provided the elders of a church do not perform any pastoral functions “in the stead and on behalf of the church…in the public services of the church.” Nor may women have oversight over the pastor.
Yes. The distribution of the Sacrament is not done in the place of Christ and it is done to assist the pastor but is not considered a distinctive function of his office.
I would suspect that the answer to this depends on whether the congregation views the pastor as the one who welcomes to the sacrament. Should a congregation or pastor welcome all who commune then no supervision would be deemed necessary and women could distribute both kinds, as it were, in the sacrament.
Yes. Women will still not pronounce the absolution or consecrate the elements by our thinking. Perhaps the speaking of the benediction will by reserved for the pastor. Certainly those aspects of the service commonly referred to as “sacrificial” will fall within the domain of women worship assistants such as offering the prayers, leading the versicles and responses, praying the collect, Etc. It may be that women can even do the more “sacramental” aspects of the service provided that a supervising pastor is present and considered responsible, much like a vicar would lead the service under the authority of his overseeing pastor.
Perhaps. Clearly baptism is an act performed in the place and by the command of Christ. On the other hand, as we will see below, the actually application of water may not fall outside the domain of women worship helpers.
As indicated above such a possibility was precluded by the inclusion in the minutes of a statement by the CCM which indicated otherwise. But even the word “preach” is open to various nuances. In some parishes of our synod women are asked to speak to the assembly through a personal testimony. And since a pulpit is admittedly an adiaphora it seems likely that women will be allowed, in some congregations or assemblies, to address the congregation from the pulpit or podium during the service provided such speaking is not deemed “preaching.”
Probably not. Although the administration of the sacrament to the shut-ins of the congregation would probably fall within the responsibilities of pastors, women, under pastoral supervision could privately give the sacrament. We have historically viewed the communing of shut-ins as an action of the public office regardless of the fact that is done privately. However, if men elders are commonly doing this job and, in the mind of the church, it is not inherent in the office of the pastor then women would be allowed to do so. This will especially occur in those churches where the pastor consecrates the elements during the divine service and then distributes these elements to the shut-ins.
In short, the only things disallowed by SW are the public worship centered actions of the pastor where he is explicitly and in his public office acting in the stead of Christ.
Admittedly, this is my understanding of SE and 3-08a. Others may interpret it differently. In many ways SW is like many of your favorite camp fire songs. You could read into it what you wanted and not be particularly concerned that others were reading into the test something exactly the opposite. In August of 2004, in fact, President Kieschnick appointed a task force to help interpret 3-08a for the church so that district constitution committees will be able to apply it with some guidance. The appointment of such a task force strikes me as a tacit admission that the resolution and SW are not all that clear.
III. 3-08a of 2004
3-08a went beyond the notions of SW in a couple of key areas. First 3-08a seems to have narrowed the understanding of the office of pastor more than SW. While SW lists a number of distinctively pastoral functions 3-08 does not. So 3-08a leaves room for some discussion or interpretation which SW does not. More significantly, SW states that “women may not assume responsibility for or carry out in behalf of the congregation (that is publicly), and in the stead of Christ.” But 3-08a drops the important clause “in the stead of Christ.” It simply asserts that women may not carry out “official functions that would involve public accountability for the function of the pastoral office.” Presumable the two are the same, but the omission from 3-08a is not insignificant. Private pastoral actions are always done in the stead of Christ even when the congregation may be unaware or when the pastor is not precisely wearing his “pastor hat.” In 3-08a these actions could be performed by a woman. Much weight is placed on the idea of public accountability.
Further, while SW forced the reader to infer the specific rights of women, the process by which 3-08a passed at the convention makes these same rights explicit. During debate an amendment was offered that would accept 3-08a but with the caveat that women could not hold the office of president, Vice president, Elder or be communion assistants. President Kieschnick ruled that this amendment was, in fact, a substitute motion. For the convention novice; an amendment is deemed a substitute motion when, in the opinion of the chairman, it changes fundamentally the intent of the motion. So, by ruling that such a motion to amend was fundamentally different than 3-08a, President Kieschnick was implicitly offering an application of the resolution. It definitely does allow women these rights. And they are explicitly mentioned in the minutes of the convention. It also seems likely that the task force appointed by president Kieschnick to interpret 3-08a will not deviate markedly from the president’s view of the matter.
At the same time 3-08a offered some olive branches to those who would pause at the wholesale changes implicit in the resolution. First there is the curious encouragement in the fourth resolved of men not to neglect their leadership responsibilities. On the face of it this resolved seems a bit sexist. Why was such a caution not given to the women? It may have been intended to forestall the perceived exodus of men from congregational life once the women are made their equals. Ironically it singles out one of the sexes for special encouragement in the face of a decision which says that, unless you are a pastor, there is nothing that differentiates you from someone of the opposite sex when it comes to service in the church.
A second olive branch is the enjoinder for congregations to consult neighboring churches before they change their way of operating. This, frankly, rings a little hollow when one considers that 47% of the delegates were not particularly heeded in the making of this far reaching change within the church. It seems also unlikely when you consider the number of congregations which are currently functioning with unapproved constitutions and have not heeded the counsel of entire districts and the Synodical CCM on the matter. But, I suppose, we can be thankful for such collegial encouragements. In fact 3-08a, at least at one level, seems to be little more than the baptism of heretofore forbidden practices; practices which are widespread throughout the synod even among district and synodical leaders, and practices which have been benignly or agonizingly ignored for over a decade within our church even though they were both unconstitutional and ostensibly unbiblical.
IV. An evaluation of SW
The theological weaknesses of SW were first exposed by a report issued by a minority of the CTCR back in 1994. Four seminary representatives on that board as well as a theology professor from Concordia Irvine issued a minority report. This minority report (MR) took exegetical issue with the rather narrow application of the biblical texts exhibited by SW. Certainly, claims MR, the word “teach” in I Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit a women to teach…a man”) is not limited to the pastoral office since elsewhere in the bible men and even women are told to teach. Further, argues MR, pastoral supervision is not referred to in any of the passages used by SW yet SW insists that it is precisely these oversight or supervisory functions of the office which women may not assume. The same argument is applied to the word “authority” (authentien) in I Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit the women to…exercise authority over a man”). Finally MR chastises SW for a “misleading and wrong” understanding of both the synod’s history and the Bible regarding the important idea of “The orders of creation” which are clearly referenced by Paul in I Timothy 2 but completely ignored by SW.
Please allow me to embellish and add to these theological concerns.
I. SW does not adequately address nor understand the profound difference between the sexes this leads to three serious errors.
First, as indicated by MR, SW interprets I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14 in too narrow a manner. It says that the single and only application of the restriction placed upon women by the apostle Paul is that they may not be pastors or perform the functions of pastors. But, in theses passages, Paul seems as much interested in celebrating the distinctive functions of men and women in the church as he does in lecturing us about the pastoral office. Further the abuses against which Paul writes especially in I Corinthians 11 and 14 seem to reflect the congregation’s misunderstanding of both the pastoral office and the uniqueness of men and women in God’s plan.
Clearly men and women are distinguished in the Bible when it comes to marriage (Ephesians 5, I Peter 3). Yet, it seems that according to SW there is no overlap between the roles of man and woman in marriage and the roles of man and women in Church except that only men can be pastors. In contrast, Paul, in I Corinthians 14, precisely overlaps the two realms (church and home) when he tells the women to ask their husbands at home rather than disrupt the services with questions (I Cor. 14:35). If the only application of this passage is the prohibition against women pastors then why are we bringing husbands and wives into the matter? This seems especially odd in view of SW’s claim that performing distinctive pastoral functions “remains the only stricture” for women. Must husbands completely abrogate their headship once they enter the church except to remind themselves that one of their kind is preaching and administering the Sacraments? This is what is suggested by SW. Paul must have broader application than this.
The minority report takes strong issue in this regard and justifiably so. I Tim. 2:12 has been interpreted by the CTCR since 1969 to apply exclusively to the pastoral office. To SW both the words “teach” and “exercise authority” (authentien) have no application outside of the official teaching of the pastor in the stead of Christ. So, according to the four decade old bit of Missouri reasoning I Timothy 2:12 does not apply to any teaching except that of pastors and any authority except that of the pastor. There may be compelling reason to believe that “teach” in the New Testament is a technical term for what a pastor does. But the New Testament also seems in places to function with a broader and more fluid use of “teach” that the CTCR holds. For example Colossians 3:16 places the teaching function upon all Christians and Titus 2:3 calls upon the older women to teach the younger. Hebrews 8:11 also suggests that “teachers” are not only pastors. Further, must the warnings against “false teachers” in the Bible (Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7; Titus 1:11; Revelation 2:14) be understood to refer only those false teachers who are called and ordained servants of the word? That would make it impossible to rebuke those church bodies which actually deny the existence the office of pastor since they have no “teachers.”
The word “authority” (authentien) in I Timothy 2 has suffered even more abuse at the hands of the CTCR. In 1969 the word was said to mean “usurp authority or domineer.” Such an understanding rendered I Tim 2:12 somewhat absurd on the face of it since Paul by limiting his comments to women would be suggesting that men may usurp or domineer. By 1986 the CTCR has changed its understanding of the word applying it now only to the pastoral office as though Paul were saying. “I admonish the women not to teach as pastors or exercise authority as pastors.” Since the word is used nowhere else in Scripture it’s hard to assert anything about its use from scripture alone. The MR raises any number of questions which need consideration.
“What is the actual meaning of the word? Is it “to exercise authority?” (CF. Report), “to usurp authority” (Cf. 1970 CCM ruling)?, or something else? Furthermore, with respect to spiritual matters? to matters of physical well-being in the congregation? More importantly, what is the relationship between exercising/usurping authority and teaching? Is the one equivalent to the other? If not, does one still somehow modify the other? Or, are these two completely different things? On this latter point, we can say that the grammatical construction of the verse and the argument in the context from the order of creation seem to suggest that teaching is one thing and with the mention of authority Paul moves on to a new topic.”
To base a change in practice on a word which has not been adequately studied and whose meaning is unclear seems as though the Bible is being forced into our desires and not the other way around.
This reasoning is also circular. First we say that the word “teach” must refer to distinctive pastoral functions. Then we allow laypeople to teach with the justification that this kind of teaching is not a “distinctive function of the office.” When asked to find a passage which allows such an exception we invoke Col. 3:16 (Teaching one another with hymns and psalms etc.). But we are not allowed to use Col 3:16 to effect our definition of the word “teach.” Some have said that Paul uses the word “teach” in the pastoral epistles to refer only to pastors. This is circular on the face of it since the letters were written to pastors. It is also wrong since in Titus 2:3 Paul makes a reference to women teaching younger women.
Second, SW fails to consider the manner in which the Bible reasons. The Bible argues from principle to practice. It establishes the principle of the headship of men (I Corinthians 11) and applies that to a practice. It argues from what is natural and lawful, basic principles in I Corinthians 14, and then applies that to a specific practice. In I Timothy 2 Paul begins logically with the truths of original sin and the orders of creation and then applies these principles to the practice of teaching and exercising authority. But SW limits the application of principle to one very precise and narrow function and neglects even to articulate the principle which is applied. What is Paul’s basic principle? Is it only that women cannot be pastors? If so, then where did this come from? And how is this principle put into practice? Isn’t it more sensible to say that the principle with which Paul works in I Timothy 2 is that there are fundamental difference between men and women and that one of the applications of this principle is that women may not teach or exercise authority? And if Paul is merely talking about the pastoral office then where did his comments on prayers of men (2:8) and the dress, jewelry, decorum and childbearing of women (2:9, 15) come from?
More fanciful is the apparent understanding of I Corinthians 14:34. Paul says that the women may not “speak” in the churches. It is impossible for the word “speak” to be a technical term referring to the pastoral office. Then only pastors would have been given the prerogative of speaking in tongues discussed earlier in the chapter. And to apply the passage only to the public authoritative preaching of the pastor is to ignore the basic charismatic problem that Paul encountered where, it seems, everyone was speaking. And why pick on lay women? Should lay men be allowed to preach? AC XIV would certainly say “No.” SW teaches that “speak” in I Corinthians 14:34 really means preach. Then it goes on to allow women to speak but not to preach. In truth I Corinthians establishes the principle that women are in submission and applies that to addressing the Christian assembly. Paul never explicitly says that women may not preach. He forbids women to speak – a far broader concept than SW teaches. For this reason, SW is guilty of a type of Biblicism where the words of the Bible are applied with little concern for the truth which these words reflect or to which they refer.
Third, SW’s desire for the pertinent passages to be understood only as referring to the pastoral office betrays a glaring omission in the consideration of the CTCR regarding the “orders of creation.” In 1969 women were granted suffrage and board membership when the synod passed resolution 2-17. In that resolution the “synod accept[ed] certain declarations as guides” in the matter of women voting or holding office. The first declaration said that the pertinent passages meant “that women ought not to hold the pastoral office or serve in any other capacity involving the distinctive functions of this office.” This language was used in SW of 1994. But 25 year earlier the synod had also said in declaration 2 that “the principles set form in such (bible) passages, we believe prohibit holding any other kind of office or membership on boards or committees in the institutional structures of the congregation, only if this involves women in violation of the order of creation.” In other words women could neither be pastors nor violate the order of creation. There were two criteria to be employed in determining what function or offices women could do or hold. First, were they distinctly pastoral and second, did they violate the orders of creation. After the third declaration in 2-17 gave women the exercise of the franchise (that is the right to vote) the fourth, again, placed two criteria upon any deliberation of the role of women by asserting that any polity that is developed “conforms to the general scriptural principle that women neither hold the pastoral office nor ‘exercise authority over men.’” In other words there was an exercise of authority that was not necessarily the holding of the pastoral office or the performance of it functions.
Slowly this second criteria began to lose it sway in Missouri at least judging by the CTCR. By 1995 the concern over the orders of creation had diminished considerably on the CTCR. The document “Women in the Church” made two passing assertions of the principle and neglected to apply it to any current question. It was a principle without an application. By 1994 and SW the whole concept had disappeared from consideration. No wonder the MR reintroduced it with the warning, “The matter of the order of creation raises questions concerning the very nature of manhood and womenhood as well as the relationship between creation and the new creation of the Age to come. These mater are worthy of fundamental (re)consideration.” Unfortunately such consideration was not evident when the synod adopted 3-08a in 2004.
II. No only does SW fail to appreciate the difference between the sexes it also is guilty of a misunderstanding of the office of the Holy Ministry. Another three errors are apparent.
Fourth, is the tendency of SW to interpret the words of Paul regarding the ministry by our predetermined categories rather than to bring our categories into conformity with Paul’s inspired words. In so doing SW changes premises into conclusions throughout the entire discussion. The Bible never says in so many words that women may not be pastors. Rather God says that women may not teach, speak in the assembly or exercise authority (authentien)over the church (I Corinthians 14, I Timothy 2). The Bible also says that pastors have the duty of speaking, reading the Scriptures publicly, teaching, administering the sacraments, exercising the keys, etc. (I Corinthians 4:1, Matthew 28:18-20, John 20:22-23, I Timothy 4:13) So, the church has historically and correctly maintained that since women may not do these things and pastors are required to do these things women should not be pastors. The premises are that pastors have to speak etc. and that women aren’t supposed to speak etc. The conclusion is that women may not be pastors. So far so good. SW, on the other hand, begins with the premise that women may not be pastors. Then SW concludes women may speak in church, may exercise authority over men and may teach in church provided they do not do so as pastors. In fact this backward reasoning has been the entire argument of those who have advanced the leadership roles of women in the LCMS for the last forty years.
Fifth, SW misapplies the Lutheran Confessions at a crucial point. In its discussion of the distinctive functions of the pastor SW sites AC XXVIII 5 where Melancthon says “That according to the gospel the power of the keys or the power of bishops [pastors] is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments.” Then SW summarizes the passages as “1) preaching in the services of the congregation; 2) leading the formal public services of worship; 3) the public administration of the sacraments; and 4) the public administration of the office of the keys.” Notice the SW makes the AC say more than it does in one way and less than it does in another. AC does not limit the preaching function of the pastor to the services of the congregation. Yet, according to SW, if a woman preached but not in congregational services it would, apparently, be OK. Also according to SW if a woman spoke in the assembly but not as the preacher then that would be OK.
More significantly, AC XXVIII says that the pastor’s job is “to administer and distribute the sacraments.” This means that the pastor does more than simply make sure that the job is done. He does more than oversee someone else doing it. He actually does the painstaking, day in day out job of applying the Word and Sacrament to the sheep of Christ’s fold. Yet in its list of distinctive pastoral functions SW has lost the reference to “distributing” the sacraments. This suggests that the Confessions saw the distribution of the body and blood in the sacrament as the job of the pastor which SW does not. It further suggests, according to SW, that the actual application of water and the speaking of words in Baptism is not precisely a distinctive function of pastors as much as making sure (supervising) the activity. So, for example, while the Confessions would insist that a communion assistant was doing the pastor’s job, SW would not. In fact, it appears the SW views the pastor as an “administrator” in a business sense, making sure things get done by delegation but not necessarily doing them himself.
Sixth, related to its ignoring the Lutheran Confessions, SW does not address adequately the call and duties of the pastor. When we say that the pastor’s job is to preach and teach the word and administer the sacraments this is not some type of minimalistic understanding of the gospel. It’s not like the pastor does the really big stuff like authoritative preaching, consecrating and benediction pronouncing and is supplemented by the priesthood who are witnessing, reading the Bible in church, distributing the sacrament, etc. Rather the pastor does the entire ministry of reconciliation which, incidentally, is the word and sacraments. The priesthood possesses this same Gospel, confers the public office on the pastor and each priest confesses and teaches the word privately in their vocations. SW seems to reason that because some private pastoral acts are, in truth, public ministry, then some public actions of the priesthood are really private. Not so. The pastor does it all “publicly” which means not only out in the open so that people can see but it also means on behalf of the church. This, as is often asserted, may involve acts done in private such as the communion of shut-ins. Anything which the pastor does for the church to apply the forgiveness of sins through the word and sacrament is the ministry and is therefore a distinctive function of the office of the pastor. To divide up the various forms of the means, or as someone once said, the “use of the means,” into pastoral prerogatives and layperson prerogatives is to place a wedge in the middle of the gospel. Anyone doing an act of the gospel ministry publicly is behaving, distinctively we might add, as a pastor.
For example, in Lutheran circles we have always maintained that the pastor, among other things, takes care of souls. He does so not only through the public dispensing of the means of grace in the worship services but through the daily interaction with God’s people and the application of God’s word in a host of human contexts. In fact, if a pastor would say, “My job is to lead the services, preach the gospel and administer the sacraments in the service and that’s it,” we would be tempted to send him back to the seminary for some more training. We might even wonder where the pastor got such a sterile and unfeeling view of the ministry. Yet that is precisely this definition of the pastoral office with which SW seeks to work. Anything outside of this narrow function is not distinctively a function of the pastoral ministry according to SW. It seems to me that when pastors develop a truncated and frankly insensitive and perhaps lazy view of the ministry rather than blaming the Seminaries we should see if these notions are not in truth emanating from the CTCR.
Another example of SW’s inadequate view of the responsibilities of the pastor is its view of oversight. Women, says SW, may serve as congregational president since “the responsibilities of this office usually do not involve the exercise of the function of pastoral oversight through the ministry of the Word and Sacrament in the congregations today” (italics added). Coupled with its lack of reference to “distributing” the means of grace, this word becomes troublesome indeed on the pages of SW. It’s almost as though the pastor is some authority figure who approves what others do while only he himself preaches and administers the sacraments in the service. When Jesus tells Peter to “feed my lambs,” (John 21:15) he was not telling Peter to make sure the sheep got fed. Nor was He was talking only about oversight as a singularly authoritarian category. He was not telling Peter simply to lead the worship services. He was talking about care and service – hands on work of applying the Gospel to people. Similarly Paul enjoins the elders in Ephesus to “Keep watch over the sheep over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” (Acts 20:28) He does not define oversight as a type of making sure that everything is done properly. Rather, he follows by saying, “Be shepherds of the flock of God which He has purchased with his own blood.” Obviously oversight and shepherding are the same thing to Paul.
This weakness of SW directly affects our understanding of the gospel of forgiveness. And it appears that SW is willing to undermine the gospel in order that its conclusions regarding women be accepted. The gospel in all its forms – absolution, baptism, holy communion, the word read, taught or preached, the mutual conversation of the brothers, one on one exhortation and comfort, leading the services of the church etc. – the gospel is one and the forgiveness which it imparts is always the same forgiveness. To divide these forms into pastoral functions and priestly functions results in a type of two tiered gospel. It’s like saying that the forgiveness affected by the consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar is somehow different and perhaps better than the forgiveness in the Word read or even in the Sacrament distributed. It also leads to a type of sacerdotalism where one forgiveness, that of the pastor, is preferable to the ordinary mundane forgiveness of laypeople. This is precisely the conclusion which the people are drawing when they say, “Only the pastor can do that.” It’s like certain forms of the gospel are just a bit more sacred than others. “The gospel lesson is more powerful than the epistle because on the pastor reads that.” “The consecration is more gospel than the distribution because only the pastor can do that.” The formal liturgical absolution is perceived as more powerful than the informal absolution inherent in any gospel presentation given by any laymen. We end up with two gospels – a pastor gospel and a laymen gospel. Instead, our people should be taught that all forms of the gospel are given to the pastor to distribute publicly to the sheep of God's fold.
III. SW, finally, errs in its understanding of the relationship between doctrine and practice especially as these relate to the royal priesthood. Three more errors are apparent.
Seventh, SW fails to assert the strong and inextricable relationship between practice and doctrine within the church. Even if women holding offices invented by the church were not inherently wrong as SW asserts, yet the practice of placing women in leadership roles over the congregation will ultimately establish a wrong belief. Practice promotes doctrine. Let me offer three examples. The practice of infant baptism promotes divine monergism. The practice of closed communion promotes doctrinal integrity. The practice of pastor’s wearing robes promotes the conviction that the office is set apart. In these three examples the first practice, infant baptism, is non-negotiable among true Lutherans. The second, closed communion, is debated among us but historically it has been both non-negotiable and necessary of fellowship. And the third practice, pastors vesting, while historically practiced for over a millennium is still recognized as an adiaphora. The nature of church practice is to affirm and solidify the doctrine which is taught and confessed. So our catechumens are taught divine monergism when babies are not given a chance to “decide for themselves.” And the people of the congregation are taught to consider seriously their confession of faith and the importance of a unified confession through the practice of closed communion. Even the dress of the pastor during the service should teach the people that the pastors both hold an office and performs certain functions which are sacred.
What happens when the next generation of Lutherans becomes accustomed to seeing women, perhaps vested, serving the sacrament, reading the Scriptures publicly, leading the public prayers and performing other functions which have historically been associated with the office of the pastor? It matters little that an obscure 1994 CTCR document has carefully identified these functions as not on the list of inherently or distinctively functions of the office (assuming for the sake of argument that these functions are not distinctive to the office). What matters is that the people see women doing things that they have assumed are the pastor’s job. The practice leads the average person in the pew to conclude that it must be all right for women to do the pastor’s job. It is simply a matter of time before all the functions of the office are delegated to any member of the church. The passages which clearly say that women should not speak or teach or exercise authority will be quietly and easily relegated to those many passages which the laymen of our churches are convinced must not really mean what they say. We will get so used to poor practices that we will be uncritical in their acceptance and they will teach us a weakened theology.
Eighth, SW fails to consider article X of the Formula of Concord. Even if the assuming of certain roles by women is not wrong and contrary to God’s word, and we concede this only for the sake of discussion, there are still compelling reasons for women to be encouraged not to assume these roles. Article X of the Formula of Concord states that when the church is in controversy then nothing is an indifferent matter. Surely, with large segments of world Lutheranism ordaining women into the office of pastor, with voices throughout Missouri clamoring for women’s ordination and especially with our culture demonizing any actions based on distinguishing the sexes, surely we are in controversy. In such a state we must not say or do anything which would give these enemies of the gospel the impression that we are somehow coming around or weakening in our resolve to honor God’s word. We must maintain our practice especially when it flies in the face of an unbelieving culture. Such an ecclesiastical and cultural context requires that we emphasize the uniqueness of women precisely in their womanhood and the uniqueness of men in their manhood. It requires that we accent and celebrate what makes us different from each other as men and women. The resolute refusal of SW to distinguish the sexes except in the narrowly defined role of pastor is, frankly, the opposite type of confession from what is required of us at this juncture in history. Instead we need to call upon the women of the church to expect men to perform those functions which they have historical done even if these are not distinctively functions of the office of the pastor. Ask yourself whether the majority of pastors in the ELCA, the other liberal protestant churches, the leading feminist organizations and the feminists of Missouri consider 3-08a a victory or a setback for the advancement of the world cause of equality for women and the furtherance of a gender free social order. Your answer should dictate the types of public confession our church needs to be making rather than 3-08a.
Ninth, SW works with a wrong view of the Royal Priesthood. “All believing Christians, both men and women, are priests of God,” says SW in its opening paragraph. And, in this priesthood “all questions of rank or authority and the insistence on individual ‘rights’ must be set aside.” This is a Christian statement, worthy of all acceptation and should be commended highly. Yet once SW embarks on the discussion of women in service it makes the unfortunate statement that “the Bible teaches us about the full possession by men and women equally, of the rights and privileges of the priesthood of believers.” Like too many theological documents, including perhaps our sermons, SW should have quit while it was ahead. Which one is it? Should we encourage each other as Christians and as a priesthood to set aside our rights? Or should we protect our rights. According to the gospel, it is joyfully untrue that men and women posses equally the “rights and privileges” of the priesthood of believers. “Rights” is a category with which neither God nor the church deals. And certainly it is not an idea which should be linked with the royal priesthood.
The expression “royal priesthood” is used collectively in both Testaments. This means that as a priesthood we posses all things. It does not necessarily mean that each individual priest has identical responsibilities as all others. And the blessings we have as a priesthood are never “rights and privileges” as if God has inspired and added a bill of rights to the Bible in order to guarantee that no one gets pushed around. Nor does the Bible use the word “equal.” Rather the metaphor of “royal priesthood” is linked with three other lovely metaphors (chosen generation, holy nation, people of God’s possession) and used to show that collectively the church accomplishes the joyful task of declaring the praises of God.
It’s the same in the book of Revelation. There God establishes a kingdom of priests who serve him and rule with Him. This is done by speaking the word of God, for God rules only through His word. Priesthood is associated with confessing the faith or declaring the excellencies of God and not with rights. Christians can’t help but speak. Disallowing women the holding of office does not deprive them of the joy of speaking as priests. If that were the case then the priesthood would somehow be curtailed when every man was not given the office of pastor. Rather, God has such confidence in us as His born again saints and priests that He thinks we can figure out how to declare his praises without negating the distinctions between men and women which we see throughout the bible. Women can be royal priests without being elders in the congregation. And to think that we are somehow advancing the work of the royal priesthood by giving women the role of congregational president is both to insult the priesthood and to overestimate the role of congregational president. God, presumably, managed to use the royal priesthood before there were congregational presidents. We can no more advance the work of the royal priesthood by expanding options for holding congregational office open to women than we can advance the ocean’s tide by building a dock.
The collective nature of the priesthood has some happy implications. One, when the pastor speaks the priesthood speaks since all are working together. Two, when the church calls and appoints pastors she is acknowledging that the pastor speaks as the mouthpiece of the priesthood. When the pastor reads the lessons in church every priest is not only hearing but also participating in the speaking. Third, priests are allowed to work on the Sabbath, so now all Christians can violate the Sabbath with work and assemble for worship any day they choose. Fourth, and most germane, priests can tell others what Christ has done privately with complete confidence in power of the gospel on their lips as if Christ spoke himself.
V. The aftermath of SW
In the aftermath of 3-08a one could expect a number of developments within the synod. I will make four predictions. First, typically when a controversial decision is made theologians make a mad scramble for their libraries in order to defend or attack the decision, laymen begin to ask questions and mark up their bibles and the church fine tunes her theology. It is hard to imagine any theological development without controversy. Half of the epistles were written to conflicted churches and some in response to threats which encompassed almost all of Christendom. Luther’s 95 Theses would not have been written had Tetzel and indulgences not come to Wittenberg. Walther’s theology was developed in response to an ecclesiastical crisis. So, I suppose, we should thank God for all our divisions and discontent. The request for discussion at this conference is proof that the predictable pattern will assert itself. And the church will be blessed. Study of God’s word and theology is always good. It leads to growth and repentance especially for those who engage in the task. God’s word is powerful, self authenticating and sharper than any two edge sword.
I do not believe, however, that the convention made its fateful decision primarily in order to stimulate theological discussion. And I must sadly, and secondly, predict that renewed theological study will probably not change anything within the synod. I say this more out of a sense of history than cynicism. Why? After the issuance of SW and MR in 1994, the synod recognized that we did not agree on matters dealing with the relationship of men and women. So the 1995 convention directed the CTCR to study these issues. We passed resolution 3-10, which gave to the CTCR the assignment to produce a “Comprehensive Study of the Scriptural Relationship Between Men and Women.” The CTCR, on its part, and in response to the synod decided to address such issues as the Image of God, Orders of Creation, and the meaning of authentein before addressing questions such as women holding various offices. Since a rather sizable and distinguished minority had taken strong issue with SW such a course of study made both theological and ecclesiastical sense. After nine years, however, the results of such study have not been forthcoming. Decisions on the question of women holding office were, nonetheless, made. It’s almost as if the powers that be on the CTCR were waiting, not for the results of theological study but for the proper political kairos. I can only conclude that we had gotten to the point in our deliberations where we did not want to be confused with more theological data. We simply wanted to make a decision. Is it unreasonable to assume, then, that the study requested in 1995 will not ever reach the synod through official channels? And even if such studies are made available is it reasonable to believe that, should the theological data demand it, we would actually change our minds? I sincerely doubt it.
Whenever our theological discourse is in the context of emotional and political interests then the task is rendered impossibly difficult. So my next prediction is that 3-08a will convert no one. Actually just the opposite will occur. People will become more entrenched in their positions with less application of the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and our theology. This is the greatest tragedy, I believe, of 3-08a. The changes it precipitates are, frankly, staggering yet we were given almost no time to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the implication of a ten year old document, let alone make such far reaching decisions. Instead there is reaction. You saw it at the convention. There was far more heat than light on the convention floor. No one was really listening in order to understand. And people were not speaking primarily to teach, but to convince in two minute sound bites. This is not the way to do theology.
When more congregations allow women to distribute the sacrament a further wedge will separate them from those churches which conscientiously oppose the practice. Helpful discussion will probably not ensue but defensiveness or accusation depending on one’s perspective with the trump card being, “Well, synod says it’s OK.” And how do you argue with that? I can only pray that even now we can recommence an honest analyses of the texts of the bible without investing ourselves in the outcome of the theological task. Such a course is, as said, almost impossible. It is always much easier to study the scriptures and our doctrine before we change our practice than to study after we had done so.
Third, having served for three years as chairman of the MNS district constitution committee I can guess what will happen in that exciting domain. There are over twenty churches in our district which are currently functioning with unapproved constitutions. Most of these constitutions are unapproved because they give women offices or functions which, until July 2004, the synod did not. Now that we have changed our minds in Missouri all these congregations will submit their constitutions for approval. The committee will be inundated. Since I have been blessedly assigned elsewhere such a prospect fills me with a dread which is merely vicarious. The current committee will cope. But just as a couple of dozen congregations were willing to go slightly over the old line they will now take a small step over the new. Multiply that by every district in the synod. District committees will face tough decisions about recommending approval for certain constitutions. Boards of Directors of districts will get involved since ultimately they have to approve any changes in congregational constitutions. Questions will be sent to the secretary of the synod and the synod CCM. And a host of decisions will be made. We will know very little about these matters unless we actually surf the synod’s web site an activity which few do and fewer admit. At any rate, the practices of Missouri regarding the involvement of women will be determined, not as they should by the mutual and trusting conversations of the brothers, but by small committees answering carefully nuanced questions. Ten years from now we will be asked in convention to bless those practices which will have been introduced in congregations over the coming decade. We will be told that we might as well approve these practices because so many congregations are doing it anyhow. And so the cycle of change will continue. It is not change based on study and learning from the Bible. It is not change based on the necessities of a confessional movement. It is change based, if you will, on a type of civil disobedience motif. We simple break the rules in hopes that others will follow suit. If enough churches break the rules then we will change the rules. Then we begin to break the new rules.
Fourth, yet another level of bureaucratic rulership is even now being added to our already bloated synod. President Kieschnick has reported in his August of 2004 letter to pastors:
It is imperative that the congregations of our synod understand clearly what this resolution [3-08a] says and does not say, what it allows and does not allow, in order to avoid widely varying interpretations of such phrases as “the distinctive functions” of the pastoral office and “public accountability for the functions of the pastoral office.”
Accordingly, I am appointing a special task force to create guidelines for congregational and District constitution committees to follow in revising congregational constitutions and bylaws to permit women to hold congregational offices so long as their assigned responsibilities do not include “distinctive function” or “public accountability for the function of the pastoral office.”
The members of this task force are:
- Dr. Samuel Nafsger, Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and church Relations
- Dr. Loren Kramer, Chairman of the Commission on Theology and Church Relation
- Dr. Arleigh Lutz, President of North Wisconsin District and chairman of 2004 Convention Floor Committee 3, Theology and Church Relations
- Dr. Al Marcis, chairman of the Commission on constitutional Matters
- Dr. Ray Hartwig, Secretary of Synod.
It is my request of this task force that these guidelines be prepared by January 1, 2005 and made available to all congregations and Districts of the Synod.
I suppose district constitution committees might take some solace in this news as they will not have to decide for themselves what the distinctive functions of the office are. But the creation of such a task force certainly also raises some questions. Why could not such a group have articulated the distinctive functions before the synod approved 3-08a? What status will these guidelines have? Will the synod have an opportunity to approve these guidelines before they are implemented? What if the task force is wrong? Doesn’t the need of such a task force suggest, as stated above, that the resolution is ambiguous? If so, why was the synod not told that it was passing an ambiguous resolution which would then be interpreted and applied by a task force which the synod itself did not appoint? Now it seems that what will govern the synod regarding the distinctive functions of the office is this: What does the task force say that 3-08a says that SW says that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod says that the Bible says. How many steps must we be removed from the Bible before we start to wonder if Sola Scriptura has been replaced/?
Fifth, most seriously, I believe that unless 3-08a is rescinded there will be an irreversible breach in our synod. Unfortunately, I also believe that if it is rescinded we will see this same breach. Approximately 250 delegates registered their no votes. This means far more than they simply disagreed. They disagreed because they did not want anyone, including God, to associate them with the decision. They believe this decision was worse than wrong and foolish. They believe that it is a sinful decision which will encourage sinful behavior on the part of the women of the church. They registered “no” because they did not know what else to do in the face of an official decision of their church which was against the Bible. It is a decision which is forcing many people to question their indefinite ongoing commitment to the synod itself.
On the other hand, if, at the convention a couple of cycles into the future 3-08a is rescinded the shoe will just be on the other foot. We will have hundreds of congregations and thousands of women who will have done precisely those things, at the behest of their pastors, which the synod would now disapprove. And they will have done them with good intent and trust. The insensitivity of condemning these service actions would be perceived as so unloving it would be labeled a sin. Will those churches and the women in them remain unflinchingly loyal to a church body which labels their actions sinful? Synodically we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I fear that we have boxed ourselves into a situation where it will be impossible to work through it without winners and losers. Prior to the 2004 convention we at least had a chance. It goes back to the relationship between doctrine and practice again. The practices of the church are public pictures and testimonies of her doctrine. As long as we don’t picture some belief by putting it into practice then the doctrine itself remains ostensibly negotiable. This is true with pure doctrine and false doctrine. 3-08a makes SW nonnegotiable. Someone once said that changing a practice is harder than changing a doctrine. A moment’s reflection of congregational life will lead to at least a tacit agreement. The same is true, howbeit more slowly, in a synod.
I am very pessimistic that our church will ever be able to mend this breach. And if we don’t we will have a number of attendant practices develop within our congregations. Churches which have used women in roles that others label sinful will make it a prerequisite for any of their future pastors including seminarians. Since the seminaries have opposed SW you can expect the grads to oppose it as well. Picture the coming conflicts as epithets will be thrown hither and yon. Vicars will be faced with conscience rending decisions in their first weeks of service. Women will join congregations only to find their services restricted. They will feel put off and diminished. This one little issue will become as dominant in the thinking of people as justification by faith, the inerrancy of the Bible or our belief in the imminent return of Christ – all articles of faith which do not enjoy such overtly symbiotic practices as the beliefs behind 3-08a. This will become, in the minds of many, the article upon which the church stands and falls. And we will be much poorer for it.
Conclusion
3-08a will greatly expand the role of women in those areas of congregational life which will encroach upon the proper duties of pastors. 3-08a does not consider the difference between the sexes according to the orders of creation. 3-08a was adopted without proper study. The consequences will be harmful for the church.
So what is next? I wish I knew. I do know that God is Lord of His church. I also know that He is not mocked. Finally I know that He moves things in ways we could not anticipate and which are best. But we usually realize so only in retrospect. I also know that we have much less control than we usually think and far more power in the word than we usually think. So we confess the truth, hopefully with clarity, hopefully with courage and then we go out, drink Wittenberg beer with our friends, get a good night’s sleep and do it again.
Klemet Preus
2004