THE SPRINGFIELDER March 1970 Volume 33, Number 4 The Status of Women in The Missouri Synod in The Twentieth Century* S CXKCELJ' HALF A CESTcRT has passed sii~cc \volncn in the United States were given the right to \.otc. In S\vit/crlarlcI, that bastion of tradition and conservatism. women still ha\e 11ot gained the right to vote in federal elections. It should scarcely bc surprising then that the role of \yomen as leaders in the 1-uthcran Church re- mains a heatedly debated matter at the present da\. At its recent 1969 convention The Lutheran Church-\Iissouri Synod adopted a resolution which broadenrcl the st.opc of partici- pation by women in svnodical affairs. \\'hiIe holding that ". . . n.on1c.n C ought not to hold the pastoral office or scrvc in an!- ot1.rc.r r,apacit!- in\!ol\.ing the distinctive functions of this ofice," thc S! nocl de- cided that ". . . Scripture docs not prohibit \i-on~en from cxercis- ing the franchise in congregational or synoc1ical ;tssen>blies" and that ". . . the Synod itself and the congregations of the S!-noel are at liberty to alter their policies and practices in regard to \vo~nen's involvement in the work uf the church . . .; provided that thc polity de~eloped conforms to the general Scriptural principles that women neither hold the pastoral office nor 'exercise authorits ot-er mm.' "! How did the S>nod arrivc at this position? Ho\\ had this milt- ter ken discussed in the Synod before 1969; The Traditional Viezr~s F rmrr Pie per to 3Zueller As characteristic as any of the earl! positions on this matter within the llissouri Synod was that taken bi Francis Yieper at the 19 13 convention of the Missouri S) nod's ~obthern Ilrinojs District. In an essay on "The Laymen's Alovement in the Light of God's \Vord," Pieper carefully distinguished lav in\rol\rcment in el angelism anct stewardship from the dirjnel?. ordained office of the public min- istry.' Against the background of this distinction, Pieper addressed himself to the matter of the Preaching of God's Word by Christiu~ Wonren. On the one hand he asserted that "It is the clear teach- ing of Holy Scripture that Christian women should also (like men) teach God's \\'ord."On the other hand, ho\vever, he insisted that "Holv Soripture excludes Christian women from all public teach- * *The writer wishes to acknmrledge the assistance of his research assistant, foultk year seminarian Peter Schmidt, ~t+io tvus of great help in checking out many of the refererzces cited in this article. -1 lr;~ $!rctll\ of It'on7cn In The .\llrsolrri Synod -. - -. - - - 3 9 -- ing in thcl prc\cncc ot 1nc.n.". C'onsistcnt \\-it11 this position he fur- ther ~~~i~~r~t~i~nctl: 9inc.c \\oman'h 5uffrage in the statc implies participation in ti~cb r.~iJt: o\.c~- men. it is contrary to the natural order which C;otl hits i.~t;tf~lishc.d to go\.c.rn the relation between man and ~~oI~~;III. lust ;is iniitlid in this connection 1 as in the matter of tl~c. ordination of wornen! is the objection that women often I- nlorc pruclcnt than men. more adroit at rnaking election sl,c.c.cl~e\, ancl more intelligent in the use of the ballot. \Ye arc. l~ountl to thc order 1111ic.h God has instituted, Gen. 2, 18: I ]'in]. 3. 12. 13; i~nd I\ herever this order is perverted, His l,~iniil~~ttcnts ;trc sure% to follon-.' Fronl thk it hCconics clear that for Francis Pieper the rejec- tion of t11c orclination of \vomr\n, the rejection of suffrage for \\omen in the ch~~rch. and the rejection of suffrage for \\.omen in the state \\crc ;111 tlctcrminetl h\ the same Biblical principles. I'icpc.r tlotccl in f1i.s c.ssa\ that objections to his position might t>c ririsecl on the basis of the cilscs of the Old Testament \\-omen, Jliriam ;rncl I)chor;>h. Hc disposcct of the case of 1Iiriam \\.ith thr tvrnark that "Jliriitm in this case (Exodus 15. 20.21) acted as thc nlusical director (sf thc Isriielitish \\omen, not of the men."" The c-;irv of the judge and j,rophctcss, Deborah, was more difficult. Of t1c.r case Ile rvn~arked: Cbct Himself most certainly may grant exceptions to the rules nhich He has laid dorvn fbr us; but it is not for us to do so. \\c Arc forc\er bound to obser\,e His rules. To make rxcep- tiorls 1s His business, ne\,cr ours.' Piqx.' [dire predictions about the cHec t of \\-oman suffrage in the political sphere \\.ere not emphasized in the half century follor~in~ the ratification of the Xineteenth Amendment to the L'nitccI States Constitution. \\'. H. T. Dau. a younger contemporary of i'iepcr, in a pan~phlet on il'onlnr~ Szrffrage in the Chrirch, turned his attention to the inipact that political suffrage was having on the church. Hc argued that "something that is a right in the state and in the ivorld is not for that reason a right also in the Church."' He did not. ho\\-ever, argue that there was anything wrong with \t.oliian suHrage in the state. Pieper, in 1924, reemphasized his \.er\. general application of thc principlc of thc subordination of \somen- to men in all spheres of life in the first \.olurne of his Christiazz Dogt)zntics. Though not as explicit here about lotitical suffrage for \\-omen as he had been in his I 9 1 3 essav, hc insisted that It I Scripture 1 forbids the public speaking and teaching of a.onien. . . . \\'omen are not even to ask questions in the public asst.niblics and then start discussions, but they should ask their own men at home." A slightly different positio~l \\.as taken b! Paul 1.indem;lnn in 1920. In an article on "The \\-oman in the C:hurcli" Linrlc.miinn concluded that while women rnust be subject to nlen. thcrc is no Bible passage that explicitly forbids n-orncn to \otc. Such \.r:tir~g, according to Lindemann, n:ould hc contrarj- to Scripture. onl\. if \\[omen thereby exceeded their subordinatc positio~i to men.'" ~lli\ position seems ver!. similar to that mentionccl above talicn 1): thc 1969 Xlissouri Synod convention. Lindcnlann nevcrthcless (:on- eluded: \Ve are happy to see that the nornen in thc. Lutheran Clil~rcl! have not yet been permeated to an\. great extent with the yen- era1 modern spirit of female restleisness." The special case of female school teachers--c\cn on the high school level-was discussed by Paul Kret~lnann in his Pr,pr*lnr Co;rr- melltarj, published in 1922. Disc~lssing I Corinthi;tn> 14: 3 6-40, he 11 rote : Let women keep silence in thc congrc.gations; thc~ shill1 t;ikc. no part in the public teachirig in the church, thciY sl~all not be given authoritative direction. . . . Herc., as in parallel pttss- ages, the apostle refers to public. teaching beforc thc \vholc. congregation; the work of \rromcn teachcrs in schools and high schools is here not condemned ." In more positive terms Kretzmann, in his int~rpr~tntion of I Timothy 3: 1-7, suggested that motherhood is thc proper \oc:i- tion for women. Ever); normal woman should enter holv n+c.dlock. become a mother, and rear her children, if Godsgrants 11cr btrbies of her own. That is woman's highest calling; for this Coct has given her physical and mental gifts. Unlcss God hin~sc,lf dircct3 otherwise, a woman misses her purpose in lifc if she does not become a helpmeet of her husband anct a mother of chi1drc.n.' The family, according to Kretznlann. is the proper spl~ere for women's activity. Leadership in the church is inappropriate to ht.r station or vocation. A few years later Iiret/niann niatle his position on woman suffrage in the church even morc explicit. God has the business of the Church in thc hancls ot men, and therefore any and ever! attempt of a woman publicl! to influence these affairs is a usurpation of rights which cnn- not be squared with God's plain command and prohibition." John T. Xlueiler, in an essay written at about the same time Kretzmann's Popular Cornmentar? n.as published, argued that women are evjdently by nature amenable to fraud and deception and therefore likely to lead the church into heresy and confusion if they assume psi tions of ecclesiastical leadership. I " 'l'hc~ Strrtus of Women in The lllissouri Synod .- - ~- ~- - - 4 1 -- 'I-h~ Viezc of the Fitmish National Eva~zgelical Lutheran Church The prohlcm of the definition of woman's proper place in the \\..its by no mcans purely academic during the earIv 1920's \\,hc11 men like Krct~mann, .\lueller, Pieper and Dau addressd them- scl\.cs to it. in 1922 the Finnish Sational Evangelical Lutheran Church authori/cd its Board of Directors to seek to establish closer rc.lation~ \\it11 the llissouri Synod. At a meeting between repre- sentati\~s of thc- t\\o synods held in Ironwood, hlichigan in Feb- ruar!., 1973. it became apparent that the tn.0 svnods were quite close to vach other in doctrine. After a second meeting in April of that sanw !car the Finnish Church, at its twenty fifth anniversarv con\,c.ntion established fraternal reIations with the Missouri ~vnod hasc.d o11 pulpit and altar fellowship. Only one issue was unre- sol\.cd. \Ian\. pastors and congregations of the Finnish Church fa\.orcbtl \\.olllan su tfragcj in church govcrnment.'" This psition was Kent.r;illy opposeci. 3s alreaciy noted, by many leading figures in the llissouri Synod. In the. juctgnlent of the Finnish Lutheran pastor J. E. Nopola. this issue \\;as unresolved as late as 1958, only five years before the consulurnation of a lnrrger bt.t\veen these two church bodies.'; In thc resolution authorizing mcrger tvith the Finnish Xational Evan- gc.licaI 1-utheran Church adopted by the Xfissouri Synod at its 1959 con\.cntion, ho\vever, no mention was made of the matter of woman suttr;igc. in the church.'' ThC last csplicit rekference to the matter in the published rec- ords of thc Katio~lal E\.angelical Lutheran Church, in its 1962 Year- lrool:, concl~rdc~cl \\.it11 the remark that "the practice of male suffrage onl\. in thc \lissouri Synotl is considc~ed Scripture-sanctioned, but not' Script~trc-dcmiinded, ;md time-tested, and as a satisfactory form of church goi.crnmcnt."'" Itecent Jlissouri Synod Viezt-s \\ it11j11 the llissouri Sknocf discussion of the place of women in the. church \\a\ rcvjiled in thc earl\ 1950's. rhe traditional stric- ture\ against woman suffrage in the church and against the ordina- tion of \tomc>n ttcrc repeated in a stud\ of The Ofice of ll'onzen in the C11nrc.h b\ Frit/ Zerhst. His hook, uritten in German shortl! aftcbr thc end' of \\'orld \\'at- 11, was translated bv Prof. Albert lIcrhcn\ ;incl published by Concordia Publishing ~o;se in 1955. T\\o )cars later a much different approach was taken by the Jlissouri Svoud pastor. Russell Prohl. Sot only did Prohl argue for the right oi' \\.omen to participate in thr government of the church. hut hc. also concluded that . . . it is timc for the Lutheran Church to support the 1955 rc.solution of the Preshvtcrians (2\finz4tes of the Gerlvral AS- , P. 97) that "there is no theological ground for deny- ing ordination to a.oelen, simply because they are \~omm."'" It is hardly surprising that the ~~lissouri Svnocl c,ummittec. Woman Suffrage, established at the 1953 con~.&tio~l of the S\:,lod. took note of Prohl's book. In jts 1959 report tilt committic rc- prted that it had discussed with Pastor Prohl thc c.onc.lusions dr;l\j-n in his book. Noting that his book lnight "confuse ;~nd lllislcad the reader who is not able to check carefully thc q~lotiltionr ;ind Scrip- ture interpretation," the committee urgccl that "e\:cl-: reakr studv the book, The Office of \V'onlall ill tllc C:hz~rc.I~, \\l-ittcn b\ Ilr, ~ritz Zerbst."" In both the 1956 and 1959 con\;cntions of tl~~ >iissoul-i Synod the place of \r.ornen in the church \\-as tl iscu5sc.il I>rin~;~ril\ with reference to the question of their right to \ otc. in cangrcgi- tioilal meetings. Reflecting the ad\,isor!. char;rcter of s\ noclic;il Con- rentions when deaIing with such issucs. the 1959 con\cntion satid.- fied itself with the n~ild admonition: Resolved. That wr urge all congregations I\-hicli gr;~~lt ;\onl;ln suffrage, whether now menibcrs of S\.noti or appl\in;2 ffor membership. to recognize the \.atidit!. oi' Syrlotl's historic posi- tion and to reconsider their practice n-i t h t he 1 icu to hringiny it into harmony with this position." It \\.as only a short step from the nicdiatino, position taken b\ the Synod in its 1959 convention (the same con\.cntion that ;$- proved merger with the Finnish Sational El-angelical I-ut1lcr;in Church without settlement of the issuc of \\.om:tn sutfr:~gc in tht. church) to its somewhat broader psition taken in 1969 arlcl 1:1~11- tioned at the beginning OF this article. Sincc thc mattcr \\;IS not discussed by the Synod in the 1950's as a mattcr on \\fiic.h it coultl speak with sure finality, the Svnod in 1969 did not in ~-c;~lit! ~nakc. a radical change when it altered its position on \\-oman sutfrii~c.' Prospects for the Fzctrtru In a separate action. the 1969 conl.ention of the \li5souri Synod referred to its president for actjon a resolution "that thc Con)- mission on 3.lission and i\finistrv jn the Church bc directed to con- duct a study of the ministry of \\-omen in chllrch and socict!-. includ- ing any areas where prejudices because of sex ma\ bc in c.\idc.ncc" and "that the decision as to the scope and tho jn\-olvc.mc.~lt of per- sonnel in this stud!^ be left to the Colnmission 011 3linistry and S,lission."" If this propsal is actecl on, future coxl\~rntions of th~ synod will likelv be faced with the task of considering thc qucstiolj of the ordination of n.omen into the parish ministr).. It is without question that the position of the S!nod itnil it. leaders on the place of \vonlm in the church has chanpd a ouniber of times during the first two thirds of the t,\-entieth ccntur?. L the same Bible passages cited against woman suff'rag and the ordi- nation of \r70men, Pieper argued against suffrage in the pofitiral realm for women in 1913, That was not reJecte(1. It sinlpl\ ignol-cti I)! llissouri S!ncxl writers after the enfranchisement of ;bncl-ic;in rrvnlcil in 1920. The old restrictions on rrlonlan suffrage in tht. c,ongr-cgations and in thc. s\nod haw now been lifted. It re- ninins to bC sccn \\ hat clc.cisiol~s the Synod \\.ill arrive at in the fu- turc in thc. rn;lttctr of the or-dination of \\.omen into the parish min- ist rv. FOOT X 01-ES 1. Tile 1.trthc.ran Church-JIissouri S\nod, Conv~ntio~r Proceedings, 1969, p. 88. 2. F[rancis J l'icpcr, lVhat 1 s Clzrictiu~~iiy) Atzd Other Essays, translated by John Tht.otlorc. \lucIli.r