Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 250

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 
R62.5