LCMS 2026 Convention Field Guide

Official Workbook report source text

Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.

Report number/id: R62.4
Report title: R62.4 Response to the 2021 Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the ILC and the Roman Catholic Church (2024)
Workbook start page: 212
Workbook end page: 215
Source pages: 212, 213, 214, 215
Source status: source_checked
Committee: Not available

R62.4

2026 Convention Workbook
213
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
5

in 3.1.2 as well as the connective unity between Christ’s sacrificial death and the Sacrament of
the Altar (3.1.3).

However, some terminology and emphases in section 3. Commonalities give pause. Here we
mention the Final Report’s rather nebulous claim that there is a “way of proclaiming the unity of
the sacrifice on the cross and the Eucharistic sacrifice.”20 Perhaps a more accurate description
might indicate that both sides find ways to proclaim both the sacrifice on the cross and a
Eucharistic sacrifice. Even that more modest claim, however, should acknowledge the fact that
the term sacrifice in the context of the Lord’s Supper is jealously restricted in the Lutheran
confessions.
21 This restriction is, of course, for the sake of opposing the teaching of the sacrifice
of the Mass and the view that the Lord’s Supper itself is an atoning sacrifice in any sense
whatsoever. As a result, Melanchthon refers only to the reality that a sacrifice of praise occurs as
one rejoices in the gift of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. And the Apology uses the term “eucharistic
sacrifice” for practices that have no direct connection to the Sacrament of the Altar.22 So, the
claim that both sides link the cross of Christ with his holy Supper is valid, but is it not also
necessary to acknowledge more openly the fact that each side links them in significantly
different ways?
23 The matter of the unity between the cross and the Sacrament deserves
continuing conversation, as the Final Report indicates in 4. Open Questions.

We can affirm the important “commonalities” identified in 3.1.4 through 3.1.6, but we would like
there to be further clarification. The discussion of remembrance is helpful, but there is a question
of order: that is, does our remembrance come in response to the gift of Christ’s body and blood
for us to eat and drink? Or, does our act of remembrance make Christ’s body and blood present
to be distributed and received?
24

The brief characterization of ex opere operato again gives pause (§ 3.1.7). The conditional
characterization of that controversial term to mean only that there is an objective reality in the
Sacrament, while unobjectionable, does not deal adequately (in our view) with the reality of the
concerns raised by Reformers.
25

Our consideration of 3.2 Liturgical-Theological Affirmation is colored by the concerns
expressed in our comments on the preceding Systematic-Theological Affirmations. The
affirmation here appears in great measure to be a defense for the notion that, in some sense, the
priest offers an atoning sacrifice to God. However, the claim is carefully stated and underpinned
by saying that “divine action is theologically primary and the human action is secondary.”
26
Moreover, the Report adds that the Epiclesis for Rome understands that the Church’s action
depends on the Spirit’s action.

20 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.3, p. 11.
21 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.3, p. 11.AC XXIV , 25, 30, KW 70 and Ap XXIV , 22, KW 261.
See also SA II,2.,1, KW 301; FC SD VII. 83, KW 607.
22 Ap, XXIV , 25, KW 262.
23 We note the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) at §1367, which says “The sacrifice of
Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” affirming the doctrine of Trent. CCC, 2nd ed.
§1367 (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1997), p. 344.
24 The Final Report, seems to imply the latter view. Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.5, p. 11.
25 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.7, p. 11. See e.g. AC XXIV , 29, KW 70; 259, 11-12.
26 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.2.4, p. 12.
6

As the Report moves on to section 3.3 The Sacramental Presence of Christ’s Sacrifice in the
Eucharist, we are especially grateful for the note in § 3.3.2 about the absence of any language in
the Lutheran Confessions “about a presence of the sacrifice of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” It is
true that some liturgies used in some confessional Lutheran churches have indicated something
along these lines.
27 At the same time, as confessional Lutherans, we dispute that such language
adequately represents Lutheran theology. This matter is therefore of vital importance to us and
we hope it is explored more fully as part of the discussion of representation as one of the open
questions.28

With regard to section 4. Open Questions, we believe the points are generally well-stated and
identify many of the uncertainties and clarifications noted in our comments in this section. They
are well-balanced and inclusive of both Roman Catholic and confessional Lutheran concerns.
29

Section 5. Intermediary Results: We have discovered, helpfully distinguishes the terms
“consensus” and “convergences.”

b. Affirmation

Our preceding “Review and Questions” should indicate two things. First, we recognize the value
of the work of the ILC and PCPCU participants and give thanks to God for the many important
points of agreement the discussions uncovered. Second, precisely because of the importance of
such conversations, we pray that there will be continued discussion of the theology and practice
of the Sacrament of the Altar between confessional Lutheran and Roman Catholic
representatives.

LCMS teaching on the Lord’s Supper is, in some ways, rather simple. For example, the LCMS
CTCR published a report titled Theology and Practice of the Lord’ s Supper (1983) that briefly
emphasizes the central teachings of Holy Scripture on the Sacrament as those teachings are
explained in the Book of Concord. (1) “The Lord's Supper offers and conveys forgiveness of
sins.” (2) “The Lord's Supper offers the truly present body and blood of Christ.” (3) “The Lord's
Supper strengthens faith.” (4) “The Lord's Supper imparts power for Christian living.” (5) “The
Lord's Supper is an act of thankful adoration.” And (6) “The Lord's Supper is a celebration of
Christian fellowship.”
30

Given such a simple characterization, one can see why we appreciate the work encapsulated in
the Final Report. The “Commonalities” identified in the report are substantial and they indicate
important elements of agreement. At the same time, there is more work to be done with regard to
the Sacrament and the CTCR strongly encourages continuing discussions.

III. Justification by Faith

27 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.3.2, p. 12.
28 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 4.8, p. 14.
29 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 4.1 to 4.8, pp. 13-14.
30 The report is available for download at https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/716DCFC2-0F4B-45C5-A250-065A446F3E83.
7

a. Review and Questions

In section three of the Final Report the representatives share the results of their discussions
concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification (JDDJ), issued by LWF and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999, plays a pivotal
role in the conclusions of the participants. The Final Report acknowledges “statements” and
“reservations” from ILC churches,
31 but declares that there have been “valuable rapprochements
between the two parties involved.”32

We are unclear about the point of reference intended by the term “valuable rapprochements.”
Does this mean that the Final Report authors have fewer reservations about JDDJ than the ILC
churches had earlier identified in their past reactions to JDDJ? The ensuing paragraphs in the
Final Report seem to suggest such a perspective.

Rome is said to have adopted a different “orientation” regarding justification in Vatican II.
33 So,
for Vatican II, “Obedience and faith are parallel, not prior to the message of faith, but to faith’s
enactment.”34 The authors note that the “sola gratia is supplemented by the sola fide” for the
first time in Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues.35 They add that “the critical function of the
doctrine of justification is upheld.”36

These points, in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 raise questions for us. Is the changed
orientation as described anything more than an increasing inclusion of faith terminology with
regard to justification? Is not the connection of obedience and faith continued evidence of a
transformative rather than a declarative understanding of justification? If so, to what degree is
that a rapprochement? Does sola fide merely supplement a right understanding of sola gratia, or
is it in fact absolutely necessary for a right view? Lastly, while we welcome language about “the
critical function of justification” for all doctrine, we also find the language to be less than
precise. We recall the textual change in justification as “criterion” between the 1996 draft of
JDDJ and the final draft—a change from justification as the paramount criterion to justification
as “an indispensable criterion.” In light of that, what does it mean to speak of “the critical
function of justification”?
37

Regarding section 1.6, we are also pleased that the matter of “reward is being dealt with.” The
bullet points are, in our judgment, examples of JDDJ’s achievements, especially since the Final
Report modestly refers only to “a certain consensus.” We too see movement toward a greater
understanding of the differing historic teachings of Rome and Wittenberg.

31 The Final Report, footnote 23, references the LCMS seminary responses which were published by the CTCR in
1999 with a summary and study guide.
32 The Final Report, Sola Fides Numquam Sola— Justification by Faith (Sola Fides), 1.1, p. 14. For the response of
the LCMS see The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in
Confessional Lutheran Perspective (1999), https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/90BD9722-8E11-4DCF-96D3-869B579EC336.
33 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.2, p. 14.
34 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.3, p. 15.
35 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.4, p. 15.
36 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.5, p. 15.
37 On the textual change that Rome required, see The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional Lutheran Perspective (1999), p p. 16-17.
8

Sections 1.7 through 1.10 move the discussion away from dogma to “the liturgical and
sacramental dimension.”38 We note that these paragraphs no longer reference JDDJ, but instead
rely entirely on references from the Book of Concord. The connection between justification and
baptism was already introduced in section 1.6, but in § 1.8 the Final Report emphasizes the
language in the Latin text of AC IV that those justified through faith “believe that they are
received into grace.”
39 The Final Report notes this as significant, but does not indicate why. Is it
understood to be consistent with a more Roman Catholic understanding of grace? What
Lutherans mean is that by faith alone without works we are justified, i.e., declared righteous for
Christ’s sake and made heirs of heaven.
40

We find these liturgical-sacramental paragraphs about baptism, absolution, and preaching to be
helpful, but not in contrast with dogmatic language. Rather, they illumine the dogmatic truth
emphasized in the biblical doctrine of justification: that God manifests his righteousness solely
“through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:22). Even as justification means
that God “reckons” or “counts” faith as righteousness (Romans 4:3-5), so also it is enacted only
as the gospel of forgiveness is made known in word and sign, promising the one who “believes
in him who justifies the ungodly,” that “his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

We find the discussion of “What Is Important for Our Dialogue between the ILC and the
PCPCU” to be very helpful.
41 The centrality of justification for understanding the Gospel is
affirmed, as is the recognition that Vatican II has enabled “a spirit of fraternal dialogue, not
polemical exchange.”42 And we commend the Final Report for its frank admission that “mutual
congruence” is not possible given the differing understanding of terms between the two sides.43
Paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 then expand on the terminological distinction in discussing the all-
important term “faith.” There are certainly points of agreement and the different views are better
understood now, yet the critical difference remains over whether faith alone justifies.
We also find section 3. Commonalities, to be generally helpful in terms of the stated items.
44
That only Christ is “righteous and holy” (§ 3.1) and so only he can sanctify the church is a vital
truth. But we miss any discussion of how that relates to Roman teachings on the cult of the
saints. The discussion of Justification by Faith in §
3.2 rightly points out convergences, and notes
that the language of faith alone (sola fide) was “finally” affirmed in JDDJ’s Annex and by
Benedict XVI. It also, in our opinion, modestly claims no more than that the formula “may no
longer be the storm centre” (emphasis added). (This judgment must be considered alongside the
comments in the preceding paragraphs on faith in 2.4-2.6.).
We are displeased with the title of 3.3, Faith Becomes Effective through Love, together with
the particular sentence, “Faith precedes love; in love does faith become effective.” The Lutheran

38 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.7, p. 16.
39 Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.8, p. 16.
40 Kolb-Wengert understands that “in gratiam recipe” is using grace to mean “divine favor.” Kolb-Wengert, AC IV ,
Latin Text, footnote 52, p. 41.
41 Final Report, Sola Fides, 2., p. 17.
42 Final Report, What Is Important, 2.1, 2.2, p. 17.
43 Final Report, What Is Important, 2.3, p. 17.
44 Final Report, Commonalities, sections 3.1 through 3.7, pp. 17-20.

2026 Convention Workbook
214
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
9

stress on justification by faith alone, full stop, must be preserved. Lutheran theology forthrightly
declares that justification means to be declared righteous by God for Christ’s sake (Ap IV , 72). It
indicates that faith’s primary effect must be seen apart from any emphasis on our love or our
sanctification because faith effectively receives what it is promised: the forgiveness of sins for
Jesus’ sake. We understand that the main point of this section is that for both sides faith never
remains alone (sola fides numquam sola). So also, faith is never divorced from sanctification.
45
Similarly, as the Final Report goes further into 3.4 Shared Aspects of Justification, we
appreciate the concern to emphasize the levels at which participants found agreement. Here the
main point of agreement is that for both sides justification requires a faith that is dependent on
grace as mediated by the church where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are
administered. And, again, that such faith is never alone—never without works.
Thus the Report argues that the Council of Trent and Book of Concord are closer than
“previously supposed.” If there are indeed such “closer affinities,” does that judgment give
proper recognition to the discontinuity that remains? As “Concordia Lutherans” we would never
reject the teaching of sanctification or that faith is active in love. Yet, the Lutheran confessors
were always also wary about any emphasis on sanctification that called into question the chief
article—that justification is by faith alone.
Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal,
sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not
be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God, so that the proper
honor may continue to be accorded our Redeemer Christ and (because our new obedience
is imperfect and impure) so that the consciences under attack may have a reliable
comfort.
46

Section “3.5 Cooperation?”—human cooperation in justification—is appropriately stated as a
question. The Report indicates that Rome would answer with an unambiguous affirmative,
insisting on “man’s personal consent” to justification, even if such “consent to God’s will” is not
by human power (left unsaid is the assumption of infused grace). Lutherans, however, can only
speak of cooperation as something that occurs after God’s justification of sinners.

Another difference remains regarding 3.6 Certainty of Salvation. The Lutheran side holds that
the certainty of God’s undeserved favor toward sinners results in the certainty of salvation. The
Roman view claims only a certainty about God intending salvation.

The last portion of the discussion of justification in the Final Report, 4. Open Questions, is a
vital addendum to the previous discussions. We affirm the need for a discussion of eschatology
(§ 4.1). We are particularly grateful for § 4.2’s characterization of the different views on
“Christian renewal.” Sections 4.3 and 4.4 are also helpful as clarifications.

b. Affirmation

45 Final Report, Commonalities, section 3.3, p. 19.
46 FC SD III, 34; KW 568.
10

The essential claim of JDDJ was the existence of “a common understanding of our justification
by God’s grace through faith in Christ” (Preamble, § 4.). That is, past differences between
Lutherans and Roman Catholics do not overrule a present “consensus on basic truths of the
doctrine of justification” (Preamble, § 5.). The response of the LCMS did not affirm such a
consensus, finding that JDDJ adopted a transformational view of justification rather than the
Lutheran understanding: that justification is God’s declaration of righteousness based on his
utterly undeserved favor for fallen, un-transformed, sinners, on account of Christ and his merits
alone.
47

We see a milder and more modest claim here in the Final Report that we can generally affirm. It
argues that there is common ground on the doctrine justification as illustrated in sections 3.3 and
3.4 (Faith Becomes Effective through Love Commonalities). This common ground is most
evident in the affirmation that faith never remains alone (sola fides numquam sola). However,
what Lutherans mean is that sanctification always flows from faith, but is never its cause.

At the same time, we want to emphasize the points of disagreement that remain. And, contrary to
JDDJ, the mutual condemnations of the 16
th century remain as an ecumenical challenge because
of the central question—Is justification solely on account of the undeserved favor of God
received only by faith or is it finally dependent on a man’s transformation (the process of
sanctification)?

However, we also hasten to add that such a frank assessment of the remaining differences
is not a
repudiation of these discussions between the ILC and the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, it
points to the value—indeed the necessity —of ongoing respectful conversations for the sake of
the church catholic and her mission. Moreover, honest assessments are the only way that
meaningful ecumenical progress can be envisioned.
48

IV. Conclusion

In our extensive review of the Final Report we have emphasized questions and points of
concern—some of which may be viewed as disagreements with the conclusions of the discussion
participants. For that reason we want to emphasize yet again our overall support for the ongoing
conversations. Our response is intended to indicate our profound appreciation for the obviously
cordial and respectful character of these conversations, our acknowledgment of important points
of agreement and clarification, and our encouragement that such ecumenical meetings between
ILC church representatives and Roman Catholics would continue.

With regard to further meetings, we gladly affirm section I V. Ecumenical Tasks in the Horizon
of Intentional Catholicity. We also appreciate section V . Ministry and Ordination—
Addendum. Given that the conversations surfaced a legitimate concern by an LCMS participant
on the matter of ordination, we are grateful that the discussion process allowed for a further

47 The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional
Lutheran Perspective (1999), pp. 17-18. We also note a recent document that distinguishes the LCMS from the
Lutheran World Federation (LWF)The LWF Today (2024), especially pages 12-14.
48 Please see the document cited earlier: “Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies,” September 17,
2011, document link is at https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/F44DF93E-1ADB-45DB-ABDC-D128581EEA15.
11

clarification of the LCMS understanding of ordination by including a letter from President
Matthew C. Harrison and a document provided by the staff of the LCMS Commission on
Theology and Church Relations.

In closing, we would suggest some additional topics for discussion. We encourage further
meetings to consider the cult of saints and purgatory, especially in the context of ongoing
discussions of the doctrine of justification. With regard to church and ministry, we hope the
topics of apostolic succession, the ordination of women, and the papacy as well as the priesthood
of all believers might be given attention. In addition, we think a thorough discussion and
comparison of views on the doctrine of the church is of great importance. And, lastly, we believe
that attention to moral teachings and social issues would be a particularly beneficial discussion
and may be an encouragement for confessional Lutherans and Roman Catholics to cooperate in
these areas.

Thank you for inviting our response. And thank you for your patience and understanding given
the length of time between your request and this response.

Adopted
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
October 4, 2024

2026 Convention Workbook
215
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
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/synod-
endorses-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 well-
known, 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
2
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
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:

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
4
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.

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

R62.4 Response to the 2021 Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the ILC and the Roman Catholic Church (2024)

Official Workbook report source text

Pause and Pray at 3:07 p.m.