LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 412

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

412 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

“authorizes” —it is a mark of “authority.” Anyone to whom the Pas-
tor and Elders must answer or account is thereby involved in mat-
ters of pastoral care. A woman’s service in such an office would
diminish the office of the Holy Ministry and contradict Scripture.
These practical considerations deserved greater attention in the
commission’s opinion.

Strong forces are eroding the foundations of our Western soci-
ety. Antagonistic to Jesus Christ and His Word, these postmodern
attitudes and liberalizing tendencies would sweep away all distinc-
tions between men’s and women’s identities and roles. Christians
in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod should retain its historic
position on the relationship between men and women as taught in
God’s divine Word, addressed to us all. Holy Scripture and the
Lutheran Confessions will strengthen us to stand fast and press for-
ward against these onrushing tides.

Paul Nus
April 30, 2004

Notes

1. At the same time, our Christian forefathers shared under-
standing of the Scriptural relationship between men and women
may never have reached full expression simply because it was not
challenged (as it is today). Martin Marty quotes Jacob Burckhardt
on the silent history of accepted truths: “Everywhere in the past we
encounter things which remain unexplained only because they were
completely self-understood in their time and, like all daily matters,
were not thought necessary to write down.” A Nation of Behavers,
(Chieago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. xi.

2. The Lord calls cross-dressing “an abomination” (DEUTERON-
omy 22:5). Men are commanded to “ACT LIKE MEN” (1 CORINTHI-
ANS 16:13).

3. Months ago, every member of the CTCR Committee which
developed this recommendation received a personal copy of an ex-
cellent book: Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Tim-
othy 2:9-15 (edited by Kostenberger, Schreiner and Baldwin and
published by Baker in 1995). The Commission has not refuted this
book’s thorough analysis and careful conclusions. These decisively
validate the Scriptural principle of male spiritual leadership.

4. In Outlines of Doctrinal Theology, A. L. Graebner defined
the perspicuity of Scripture as “that clearness of Holy Writ which
renders all the doctrines and precepts laid down in the inspired
Word freely accessible to every reader or hearer of average human
intelligence and sufficient knowledge of the languages employed.”
Years later, Theodore Graebner joined Paul Kretzmann to build on
this definition in their explanation of “The Limitations of Reason in
Apprehending the Truth of Scripture.” To the extent that God has
given human reason the ability to “apprehend” certain doctrines
(though not without faith to “comprehend” them), they insisted, “al/
the powers of appropriation, induction, deduction, inference, of
which the human mind is capable, [are to be] employed in this act
of apprehending what the Bible offers for acceptance to our mind.”
Certain doctrines are apprehended in Scriptural study through such
processes as induction (including the Holy Trinity and the com-
munication of Christ’s attributes) and deduction (such as the right
to serve in just wars, and the recognition that Mary may truly and
properly described as the “Mother of God,” since she is the mother
of Jesus, the Son of God). These are no less valid that those which
are directly stated in the Scriptures. “We shall not overlook the fact,”
they stated, “that in some points our church practice rests upon de-
ductions strung out over quite a seriex of syllogisms.” Toward
Lutheran Union: A_ Scriptural and Historical Approach,
Theodore Graebner and Paul E. Kretzmann, (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1943), pp. 37-46).

2007 Convention Workbook

A Minority Statement on Authentein—A Report in
Response to a Request from the Atlantic District

by Paul F. Nus

Our proper understanding of this single Greek word in Holy
Scripture is crucial to God-pleasing church practice. Its implications
and applications are broad and significant.

To simplify and clarify, three important conclusions could be
drawn from this report. With regard to the “authority” that this
word of Holy Scripture reserves to men and proscribes to women,
a proper understanding of authentein entails:

(1) Not only to “have” it but more concretely to “exercise” it. The
sense of the word is not merely potential, official, theoretical, or pas-
sive, but actual, real, practical, and active. For years, it was objected that
“The word (in Greek it is authentein) is never elsewhere employed in
the Bible and is only rarely found in later Greek”! to suggest that we

cannot know its meaning for certain. Now this CTCR report proves that
the word was not so uncommon as once thought. As a result of recent
research, we can now say with confidence what it means: “exercise au-
thority.” That which may not be used, ought not be assigned, and that
which is actually used, has already (in effect) been assigned or usurped.
(2) Not merely its bad misuse, but even its good use. The report
conclusively establishes a new and related insight: we now know that
the word authentein does not only mean “domineering.” For almost fifty
years the opposite view has been widely held in the Missouri Synod: “‘it
has an opprobrious connotation, something like our ‘domineer over,’
‘lay down the law to,’ dictate to,’ ‘to lord it over.’"? This CTCR report
disproves that view: “...authentein viewed within its grammatical con-
text in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be understood as having a pejorative
or negative connotation (such as, for example, the translation ‘domineer’
would have), but a positive one.” In other words, the exercise of au-
thority depicted with this word is good and not inherently bad of itself.
It is not just a bad practice which is forbidden, but a good action that is
limited in how it is to be exercised or implemented.

(3) Not only that wrongfully taken but even that permissively
given. The word authentein does not merely refer to “usurped” author-
ity, as in the self-willed, greedy, grasping of office or power for one-
self—taking what was not given. The full meaning certainly includes,
but is not limited to, this aspect. God holds men responsible and ac-
countable for some things that they may not avoid or delegate to women.
The Church may suffer as much or more from passive, silent, neglect-
ful or irresponsible men as from overly vocal or domineering women.
Beyond this need for greater simplicity and clarity, I object to

three aspects of this study:

(1) Right at the outset, the CTCR quotes | Timothy 2:12 in the NIV.
Yet it is precisely this translation (“have authority”) which research has
now established as inadequate. The word “exercise” is better and more
accurate, as in the more recent English Standard Version: “I do not per-
mit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is
to remain quiet.”

(2) The CTCR carefully “limits itself” to a “lexical” study, without
detailing any practical applications and implications. In reality, these are
unavoidable. With this word authentein in Holy Scripture, God ad-
dressed no mere abstract concept of “authority”, but the real fact of its
improper usage or exercise. If the CTCR’s study can be clearly under-
stood, then it must be put into practice—even (and especially) if the clear
teaching of Scripture contradicts or undermines recent trends, present
practices, and desired innovations.

(3) Instead, “the Commission recommends the continued study of
its 1985 report The Service of Women: Scriptural Principles and Eccle-
sial Practice.” This represents a significant inconsistency. The Com-
mission ought not imply that the latest studies support and confirm that
document. In fact, the conclusions of this study contradict and undercut
crucial aspects of the 1985 report.

Conclusion

One who cannot exercise authority does not really have it. And
one cannot “exercise” authority without “having” it, even tem-
porarily. Both the steward and the thief hold and use what they do
not own. The CTCR has now recognized that the “authority” of au-
thentein is in fact exercised. Yet it neglected to explain what this
necessarily implies. In the context of Paul’s ftrst letter to Timothy,